Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45781/2017rejected

Arvind Yadav @ Bauwa Yadav @ Bauwa v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-04Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45781 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2014 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Arvind Yadav @ Bauwa Yadav @ Bauwa Son of Bhumi Yadav, R/o VillageArraha, P.S.- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI NAND KISHORE PD ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected twice vide order dated 22.04.2016 and 11.01.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8942 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. No. 53834 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2014 without any tangible material, there is no witness to actual killing and during investigation it has come that the petitioner was not the assailant and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner was having pistol in his both hands and son of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45781 of 2017(2) dt.04-10-2017 2/2 informant was found shot dead having injury in rib cage and further the petitioner ran towards the informant also and the trial has been delayed intentionally by the accused persons. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of the prayer of bail, again his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Souor Bazar P. S. Case No. 47 of 2014.

However, considering the period of detention, again trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T