Ramesh Sah @ Ramesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 27919 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2018 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAMESH SAH @ RAMESH KUMAR Son of Inardeo Sah Resident of Village- Rupouliya, P.S.- Phenhara, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Anant Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-11-2020 As of now, the Courts have not resumed normal physical hearing. The matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual Court proceedings with the aid of audio visual technology.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr Anant Kumar, APP is appearing as it is submitted that the brief has been allotted to him by the Office of Advocate General.

The petitioner seeks bail in Phenhara Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 34 of 2018 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 328/34 of Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27919 of 2020(2) dt.02-11-2020 2/2 Petitioner is husband of victim.

It is submitted that five prosecution witnesses have been examined and only the Investigating Officer (for brevity, IO) remains to be examined in support of the prosecution case. Petitioner's counsel further submits that the victim died due to some illness and that the allegations are false. The learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the rival submissions and also the fact that the IO is only to be examined on behalf of prosecution, this Court would observe that the trial Court should take all efforts to expedite the trial at the earliest possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournments.

Prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner, for the present, is rejected with the aforesaid observations. Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant proceedings today for depositing requisite Court fee and removing the defect (s), as pointed out, when called upon to do so.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T