Chandan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41831 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -128 Year- 2012 Thana -DINARA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Chandan Singh, son of Krishna Bihari Singh, resident of village-Surwareke Bararhi, P.S. Dinara, District-Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Pathak, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------ 04-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in Dinara P.S. Case No.128 of 2012 registered under Sections 304-B, 201 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer of the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, for bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. No.29843 of 2013, which would appear from Annexure-'1' to this application and the petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2012. The report, regarding the stage of Sessions Trial No.28 of 2014/72 of 2014, arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No.128 of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41831 of 2014 (3) dt.04-02-2015 2/2 2012, and the expected time within the trial of the case is likely to be concluded, as called for vide order dated 24.12.2014 has been received from the court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, through letter no.01 dated 06.01.2015, which shows that the charge has not been framed in this case as yet and the expected time within which the trial may be concluded is six months, after framing of charge.

Earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected by this Court on merit. I find no reason to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail is again rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T