Rajesh Pandey @ Rakesh Pandey @ Vivekanand Pandey @ Vivekanand v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46394 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -67 Year- 2015 Thana -NARDIGANJ District- NAWADA ====================================================== Rajesh Pandey @ Rakesh Pandey @ Vivekanand Pandey @ Vivekanand, Son of Late Jagdish Pandey, R/o Village- Ramey, P.S.- Nardiganj, DistrictNawada. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP For the informant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 67 of 2015, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 379, 504 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Nawada.

Admittedly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been refused twice by this Court lastly on 11.01.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 54670 of 2016 taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner to shot fire at the abdomen of the injured Ranjit Kuar, brother of the informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46394 of 2017 (3) dt.24-01-2018 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2016. The stage of the trial in respect of the petitioner, as called for, has been received through Letter No. 42, dated 17.01.2018 from the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Nawada, which disclosed that at present the record is running for hearing on the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that on framing of the charge, the informant will adduced all private witnesses within three months.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to reconsider the bail prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is again rejected. However, the learned Court below is directed to take all effective stapes to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within six months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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