Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49582/2014rejected

Pappu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2015-03-25Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49582 of 2014 (2) dt.25-03-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49582 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -31 Year- 2013 Thana -SARSI District- PURNIA ====================================================== PAPPU RAM, SON OF UMESH RAM,WIFE OF DR. FIROJ ALAM @ BUDHIA DHANKATTA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTRICT - PURNEA .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Jha, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 958 of 2013 arising out of Sarsi P.S. Case No. 31 of 2013 registered under Sections 328, 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, Priti Devi, was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 06.02.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31182 of 2013 by this Court and he is in custody since 09.04.2013. It is further submitted that case of the petitioner has been committed to the court of sessions

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49582 of 2014 (2) dt.25-03-2015 numbered as Sessions Trial No. 958 of 2013, in which, charge has been framed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Purnea, but till today, only three witnesses have been examined out of eight charge sheeted witnesses, but they have not supported the prosecution case, while informant and other witnesses are yet to be examined.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within one year by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T