Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53670/2016rejected

Umesh Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2016-12-14Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53670 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -61 Year- 2014 Thana -MAGADH UNIVERSITY District- GAYA ====================================================== Umesh Manjhi, son of late Bandhu Manjhi, resident of village-Arjun Bigha, P.S.-Magadh University, District-Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 14-12-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 18.01.2016 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47868 of 2015 on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 20.08.2015, having no criminal antecedent, up-till-now charges have not been framed and in near future, the trial is not likely to be concluded. There is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner and other co-accused, namely, Bhola Manjhi and Surendra Manjhi brutally pressed the body of the informant after climbing on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53670 of 2016 (2) dt.14-12-2016 2/2 him and the doctor has also found the cause of death due to the said injury.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of bail, again, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Magadh University P.S. Case No. 61 of 2014. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible and preferably within six months after taking the same on priority basis, if possible, on day to day basis and in case, the trial is not concluded then the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if at no fault.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) ajaypd./- U T