Rahul Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23921 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2017 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAHUL SINGH Son of Late Ram Rekha Singh Resident of Village - Dumari Baiju, P.S. - Patahi, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akshaylal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-11-2020 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akshaylal Pandit, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chiraiya PS Case No. 180/2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation, as per First Information Report, is that the informant received a call on his mobile continuously for the last 2-3 days demanding extortion money of Rs. 25 Lacs from the informant with a threat that, in case, the payment is not made, he would be killed. It is further alleged that the caller disclosed that he is the shooter of Rahul Singh (petitioner).

4. The third attempt for bail on behalf of petitioner has been made as on earlier two occasions, his application for bail has been rejected by this Court vide Cr. Misc. Nos.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23921 of 2020(3) dt.10-11-2020 2/3 36073/2018 and 67483/2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2017 and this Court while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner vide order dated 29.01.2020 in Cr. Misc. No. 67483/2019 had observed and directed the trial court to take appropriate steps on regular basis, so that the trial may be concluded within a period of five months. At the same time, Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari was also directed to ensure presence of witnesses on the date fixed by the trial court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the charge sheet witnesses have been examined except I.O.

7. This Court had called for a report from the court below and from the perusal of the said report, it would be evident that the court below has already written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari for securing presence of I.O. The court below has further mentioned in the report that the trial is likely to be concluded within three months.

8. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage and same is,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23921 of 2020(3) dt.10-11-2020 3/3 accordingly, rejected.

9. However, petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after three months from today.

10. Learned court below as well as Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari are directed to take required steps for concluding the trial within the period of three months positively.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T