Rajan Sadai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32896 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2018 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rajan Sadai, S/O Sheetal Sadai, R/O Village Madhepura Mushari Tol, P.S. Pandaul, District Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratanakar Jha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2021 learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 223 of 2018 corresponding to CRI No. 2481 of 2018, registered under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani. The acquisition is of killing the deceased, daughter of the informant, by her husband (petitioner) and other in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry within two years of her marriage, while she had one male child.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and his prayer for bail has already been rejected on merit vide order dated 11.12.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 56860 of 2019. Further submission is that while the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2018 but the trial of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32896 of 2021(3) dt.08-09-2021 2/2 petitioner has not been concluded as yet.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 252/2021 dated 11.08.2021 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, which shows that the charge has already been framed on 25.07.2019 and out of five charge sheet witnesses, only one witness has been examined and the trial of the petitioner is likely to be concluded within six months after the Civil Court starts functioning in physical mode. Taking into consideration, the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to re-consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within nine months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after nine months.

Bhardwaj/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) U T