Akhilesh Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24507 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2005 Thana- KHIJARSARAI District- Gaya ====================================================== AKHILESH MANJHI, Son of Bishu Manjhi, Resident of Village- Narawat, P.S. Atri, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Pd. Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 01-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual court proceedings. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, later on 302 I.P.C. was added. Prosecution case in brief is that as per FIR, on 31.08.2005 at about 6.00 pm, the informant's mother namely Sabuja Devi was pacifying the altercation between his uncle and one Yogendra Manjhi. At that time, petitioner namely Akhilesh Manjhi made firing as a result of which, his mother sustained injury on her left abdomen and she fell down then the petitioner fled away from there. With the help of the villagers, the informant brought her mother for treatment at Khizarsarai Hospital.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24507 of 2020(4) dt.01-12-2020 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is in jail custody since 03.12.2019. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent which is mentioned in para 3 of the bail petition.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail petition.

A report was called for vide order dated 02.11.2020 and the same has been received from the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Gaya regarding the stage of trial in Sessions and the same is enclosed at Flag 'R' in which it is stated that one witness on behalf of the prosecution was examined and the record is fixed for evidence of rest of the prosecution witnesses. But due to present pandemic, Covid-19 the physical court proceeding is non-functional. In this case summons has already been issued against the witnesses. It is further requested in the report that eight months time may be granted to conclude the Sessions Trial No. 15/2020/46/2020. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 15/2020/46/2020 (Arising

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24507 of 2020(4) dt.01-12-2020 3/3 out of Khizarsarai P.S. Case No. 90/2005 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Gaya.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of nine months from today and both the parties are directed to extend their full cooperation in early conclusion of the trial. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) amitkumar/- U T