Nagendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2448 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2021 Thana- VALMIKINAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== NAGENDRA RAM Son of Ram Kishun Ram Resident of VillageRampurwa, Police Station- Valmikinagar, District- West Champaran ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Zainul Abedin For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 26-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer of bail vide order dated 14.02.2023 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Valmikinagar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 302 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) (r) (s)/3 (2) (v-a/)/3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2448 of 2023(3) dt.26-07-2023 2/2

3. This is the second attempt of the appellant for grant of bail. Earlier vide detailed order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.4129 of 2021, the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected.

4. Vide order dated 28.06.2023, a report was called for from the learned Court below regarding the stage of the trial and the time likely to be taken in conclusion of the trial. In compliance thereof, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Special Judge (SC/ST), West Champaran at Bettiah has reported that nine months is required to conclude the trial from the date of framing of charge.

5. In view of the aforesaid as well as the fact that there is specific allegation against the appellant of assaulting the father of the informant on his head by means of farsa, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer for bail.

6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is once again rejected and this appeal is dismissed.

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