Vinod Singh @ Binod Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18934 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2019 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== VINOD SINGH @ BINOD SINGH S/o Late Mukhtar Singh @ Haribhajan Singh R/o Village- Durgpur, P.S.- Tarari, Distt- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 09-06-2020 This application has been placed for consideration by the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice through virtual court proceeding.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

This is the second attempt taken by this petitioner for grant of regular bail. His prayer for regular bail has been rejected earlier by a learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2019 passed in in Cr. Misc. No. 62263 of 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly made repeated prayer before this Court to call for a report from the court below but when this Court expressed it's annoyance on the kind of insistence being imposed upon this Court by learned counsel, immediately thereafter, he started praying for adjournment. This Court is not accepting the prayer of learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18934 of 2020(2) dt.09-06-2020 2/2 counsel for the petitioner because at the outset when the case was called out the prayer for adjournment was not made. This is the consistent view of this Court that after testing the nerve of this Court, if a prayer for adjournment is made by a learned counsel the same cannot be accepted.

Learned APP for the State has also opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner on the ground that the prayer of the petitioner has been earlier rejected on merit but only after three months the present application has been filed. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to demonstrate that there is any change of circumstance for which the petitioner deserves privilege of bail.

This application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/-rajeev.

U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.