Dukhan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40043 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2015 Thana- JHANJHARPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Dukhan Mahto son of Late Laxmi Mahto resident of village Sirkhariya, P.S. Jhanjharpur (Arariya Sangram), District Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42658 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2015 Thana- JHANJHARPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Satya Narayan Mahto, son of Late Laxmi Mahto, resident of VillageSirkhariya, P.S.- Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40043 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hriday Narayan Harshit For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. MD. ANZARUL HAQUE SAHARA (In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42658 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI NAND KISHORE PD ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2017 Above noted both the applications have arisen out of one occurrence as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners want to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 10.11.2015 and 25.01.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35161 of 2015 and 5543 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2015, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40043 of 2017(2) dt.20-09-2017 2/2 Police after adopting 3rd degree method got recorded the confessional statements of the petitioners after recovery of the dead body and as such the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that on the basis of disclosure made by the petitioners the dead body of Kaushlya Devi was recovered.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of the prayer of bail of the petitioners, again their such prayer stands rejected in S.Tr.No. 117 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Madhubani.

However, considering the period of detention learned trial court is again 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 after taking the same on priority basis, failing which, the petitioners, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew their prayer of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T