Siya Yadav @ Siya Sharan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33334 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-818 Year-2021 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Siya Yadav @ Siya Sharan Yadav, S/O- Late Saryaug Yadav, Village- Patuana P.S.- Bihar Dist- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-08-2023 Heard Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. The informant is represented by Mr. Pankaj Kumar.
2. This is the second attempt wherein the petitioner is renewing his prayer for bail in connection with S. T. No. 241 of 2022 arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 818 of 2021 for the offences punsihable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the prayer of the petitioner for grant of his bail was turned down by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31494 of 2022 after taking into consideration the specific nature of accusation that this petitioner assaulted the father-in-law of the informant by means
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33334 of 2023(3) dt.16-08-2023 2/2 of sword, due to which he sustained serious injuries, apart from the fact that the trial was likely to be concluded within a period of three months.
4. Vide order dated 19.07.2023, a report with regard to the present status of the trial was called for, from perusal of which it appears that the case has been going on for prosecution argument. The aforesaid fact has not been refuted by any of the parties.
5. Considering the fact that the trial is fixed for argument, this Court is not persuaded to concede the prayer of the petitioner and accordingly, the present application stands rejected with a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months failing which the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U T