Md. Saddam Khan @ Sadam Khan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32238 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2019 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan ====================================================== MD. SADDAM KHAN @ SADAM KHAN S/o- Manjur Khan R/o VillageRajanpura Muslim Tola, P.S.- M.H. Nagar, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-03-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within four weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in his second attempt in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Siswan (M.H. Nagar) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 73175 of 2019.

Report received from the learned trial court shows that only three witnesses are yet to be examined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in jail since 17.03.2019 and the trial is not progressing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32238 of 2020(7) dt.25-03-2021 2/2 well.

Learned A.P.P. for the State is present and has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein it appears from the report received from the learned trial court that the prosecution witnesses have been examined and now only three prosecution witnesses have remained to be examined, learned trial court is looking for only three months time to conclude the trial, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Let the trial be concluded within a period of three months in terms of the information furnished to this Court. The prosecution shall cooperate in producing the witnesses on the dates fixed in the matter.

In case the trial is not concluded within a period of three months despite all cooperation on the part of the petitioner and for no reason attributable to him, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rishi/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.