Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55713 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -13 Year- 2013 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Sharma, Son of Ashok Sharma, resident of village- Bhimpura, P.S.- Masaurhi, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Murlidhar, A.P.P. ====================================================== 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 Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2013 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- X, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1486 of 2013.

The prayer of the bail of the petitioner was earlier refused on merit by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47539 of 2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2013 and the trial has not been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55713 of 2017 (3) dt.24-01-2018 2/2 concluded as yet. The status report, as called for regarding stage of the trial, has been received vide letter dated 16th January, 2018 from the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Xcum Authorized Officer, Court No.-II, Vigilance, Patna, in which it is detailed that out eight charge-sheet witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined and the case record is pending for the evidence of I.O. and Doctor for which the bailable warrant has been issued and the trial Court expects that trial will be concluded within four months.

Having considered the facts and circumstances and nature of allegation, I find no reason to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. However, the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-X-cum Authorized Officer, Court No.-II, Vigilance, Patna is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within four months. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Sudha/- U T