Sonu Kumar Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3052 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -126 Year- 2017 Thana -AADAPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Sonu Kumar Pandit, Son of Virendra Kumar Pandit, Resident of VillageBairmia, P.S.-Kaley, District- Bara (Nepal). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 07-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Prayer for bail of this petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.08.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. 31997 of 2017 and the Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial. Report has been called for from the court below which has been received. From the report it appears that case is pending for framing of charge.

This Court in the order dated 24.08.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. 31997 of 2017 has mentioned that witnesses in paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 have stated that Brown Sugar has been recovered from possession of this petitioner.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3052 of 2018 (3) dt.07-02-2018 2/2 The court below is directed to expedite the trial and make all efforts to conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below in the event the trial is not concluded within nine months which shall be disposed off by the court below in accordance with law and the court below will give reason in the bail order for not concluding the trial within aforesaid period. It is important to mention here that earlier also a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. 38337 of 2017 directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of four months, but the same has not been complied with.

From the report it appears that even charge has not been framed in this case after passing of aforesaid order. Therefore, the trial court is directed to proceed in the trial in terms of orders passed above, failing which, this Court will take serious view, in the event trial court does not take serious steps to conclude the trial as per direction of this Court.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T