Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23670 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2018 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== CHANDAN YADAV @ CHANDAN KUMAR YADAV, age-35 years, Male, S/o Bharat Yadav, resident of village- Chowk Chama, P.S.- Amdabad, DisttKatihar. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through Virtual Court Proceeding. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Amdabad P.S. Case No.39 of 2018 (Sessions Trial No.468 of 2018), registered for the offence under Sections 341, 504, 323 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation has been made that accused persons including this petitioner have killed the brother of the informant. Earlier, the petitioner had moved before this Court for bail vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.31415 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated 10.07.2018 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Again, the petitioner had moved for bail vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.29519 of 2019 and this Court vide

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23670 of 2020(3) dt.16-10-2020 2/2 order dated 20.11.2019 again rejected the prayer of the petitioner for bail with a liberty that he may renew the prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded by 30th of January, 2020. In the present proceeding, this Court vide order dated 10.09.2020 had called for the status report regarding stage of trial. This Court has perused the report of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Katihar, wherein it has been stated that five charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined and few witnesses are left to be examined and atleast three months is required to concluded the trial.

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months after restoration of normal Court proceeding. If the trial is not concluded within six months after restoration of normal Court proceeding, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U T