Mintu Giri v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18822 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-340 Year-2016 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran ====================================================== Mintu Giri, Son of Late Badri Narayan Giri, Resident of Village / Mohallah - Arya Nagar, Giri Tola, P.O.- Sahebganj, P.S.- Chapra Town, District- Saran at Chapra (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Ataur Rahman,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through Video Conferencing. The petitioner is accused in connection with Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 340 of 2016 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
Admittedly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected thrice on merit, lastly on 16.01.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2016 but the trial of the petitioner has not been concluded as yet.
A report regarding the present stage of trial has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18822 of 2020(4) dt.05-10-2020 2/2 received through letter no. 71 dated 02.09.2020, from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Saran at Chapra, which shows that in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 2019 out of ten charge sheeted witnesses, only four witnesses have been examined. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within eight months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of eight months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T