Umesh Yadav @ Mukko Yadav @ Mukru Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28605 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2015 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Umesh Yadav @ Mukko Yadav @ Mukru Yadav Son Of Anil Yadav @ Anno Yadav R/O Village- Aliganj, Uppar Gangti, P.S.- Habibpur, DistrictBhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 307, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act later on Section 302 of the IPC was added.

In pursuance to the order dated 22.06.2022, status report of trial in connection with Sessions Trial No. 543 of 2018 arising out of Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015 has been received and kept at Flag-R, in which it is reported that there are five charge-sheet witness in this case. Till date two witnesses have been examined and three witnesses are left for evidence including the doctor and I.O. It is further reported that this case may likely to be concluded within six months.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28605 of 2022(3) dt.27-07-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 13.01.2018 and he has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is the main assailant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his payer for bail is rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 543 of 2018 arising out of Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months and S. S.P., Bhagalpur is directed to ensure production of the witnesses in the case on each and every date fixed without fail. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T