Sonu Rajak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39251 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-747 Year-2018 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== SONU RAJAK Son of Late Dhannu Rajak @ Late Chhunnu Rajak, Resident of Village - Bhabua Ward No.- 24, P.S.- Bhabua, District - Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Kant Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Vinod Shankar Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 08-09-2021 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 302/34/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Vide order dated 04.08.2021 a report was called for from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kaimur at Bhabua, which is kept at Flag 'P' in which it is stated that out of 12 prosecution witnesses named in the charge sheet 06 witnesses have been examined, cross-examined and discharged. The informant, the I.O and the doctor witnesses are yet to be examined. This court has already issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the informant and other remaining private witnesses of the charge sheet on 25.03.2021.

Considering the report of the learned court below, I

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39251 of 2021(3) dt.08-09-2021 2/2 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. 91/2019 arising out of Bhabua P.S. Case No. 747/2018 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kaimur at Bhabua and / or other transferee court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 09 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. At the same time, the S.P. of concerned district is directed to ensure the presence of witnesses in the court, so that the trial may be concluded within time limit given by the trial court. The concerned S.P. is also directed to produce the accused person as and when required by the trial court through virtual mode/Video conferencing.

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