Chandan Paswan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.59390 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -307 Year- 2013 Thana -SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSITAMARHI ====================================================== Chandan Paswan, Son of Late Shiv Narayan Paswan, Resident of VillageRanjitpur Got, Police Station- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Keshwar Paswan, Son of Late Ramdeo Paswan, Resident of VillageGirmisaini, Police Station and District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. 11571 of 2017 with direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and make efforts to dispose off the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.

Report has been called for from the court below which has been received. From the report it appears that six prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The trial court has submitted in its report that trial is likely to be concluded by March, 2018. Learned counsel for the informant has appeared and submitted that evidence of prosecution witnesses have already been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.59390 of 2017 (3) dt.31-01-2018 2/2 closed on 24.01.2018 and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. has also been recorded, Learned counsel for the informant has produced certified copy of the order of the trial court dated 24.01.2018 and also the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. In such circumstances, this Court does not seem it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage since trial court has stated in its report that trial is likely to be concluded by March, 2018. The prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself in the event the trial is not concluded within three months which shall be disposed off by the court below in accordance with law and the court below in that event will give reason in the bail order for not concluding the trial within aforesaid period. (Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T