Patna High CourtCR. MISC./770/2017rejected

Suresh Rajbanshi v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-18Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.770 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -35 Year- 2015 Thana -CHHABILAPUR District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Suresh Rajbanshi, S/o Chhote Lal Rajbanshi, Resident of VillageChaurma Balganga, P.S.- Nardiganj, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar No.1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chhabilapur P.S. Case No. 35/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail which was earlier twice rejected by order dated 6.11.2015 and 27.07.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32620/2015 and Cr. Misc. No. 24042/2016 respectively on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 27.03.2015 and no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been put on T.I.P. and uptill now only nine witnesses have been examined out of 19 witnesses and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. After

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.770 of 2017 (2) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 passing of the order dated 27.07.2016, no witness has been examined, though there was direction to conclude the trial within four months.

Learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner was identified during T.I.P. by two witnesses and the trial is in progress. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for re-consideration of the prayer of bail, again the prayer of bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, considering the detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rakhi U T