Ranjeet Yadav @ Dagra @ Daroga v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4015 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -269 Year- 2013 Thana -BARH District- PATNA ====================================================== Ranjeet Yadav @ Dagra @ Daroga, son of Brijnandan Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Masud Bigha, P.S.- Barh, Distt. - Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Prem Kumar Jha (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail which was earlier rejected vide Cr. Misc. No. 31262 of 2014, Cr. Misc. No. 28921 of 2015, Cr. Misc. No. 54209 of 2015 and Cr. MIsc. No. 23475 of 2016, on the ground that the trial has not been concluded inspite of specific direction given in the order and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded and the petitioner is suffering in custody since 28.10.2013.

Learned APP submits that against the petitioner there is allegation for committing rape with the victim and from the report of the trial judge it reveals that victim and other witnesses have already been examined, two public witnesses and the doctor

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4015 of 2017 (4) dt.29-03-2017 2/2 are yet to be examined and further two months time has been sought by the learned trial Judge.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of the bail, again prayer of the bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court itself, but the petitioner has moved this court directly without the order of the learned trial court.

However the trial court is again directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within two months as sought by him after taking the same on day to day basis from date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T