Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22835/2019bail rejected

Mahesh Ray @ Mahesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-11Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22835 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-422 Year-2015 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== MAHESH RAY @ MAHESH RAI Son of Late Rajvanshi Rai Resident of Village - Rahar Diyara, P.S.- Sonepur, Distt - Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 422of 2015, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra.

Admittedly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was refused on merit on 11.05.2016 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19620 of 2016 by this Court. A report, as called for, has been received to the Court of Addl. Session Judge-I, Saran, Chapra through letter No. 330, dated 18.07.2019, which indicates that after closing of evidence of both parties, the record is going on for argument and he expected that trial would be concluded within two months.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22835 of 2019(4) dt.11-09-2019 2/2 Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merit, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected. However, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Saran, Chapra is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within four months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of four months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T