Siko Mandal @ Sikandar Mandal @ Siko v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14540 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2014 Thana -DHOLBAJJA District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. SIKO MANDAL @ SIKANDAR MANDAL @ SIKO Son of Sarobar Mandal, Resident of Village- Kadwa (Jungli Tola), P.S.- Dholbajja (Kadwa O.P.), District- Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Soni Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pronati Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The trial court has reported that up till now, four prosecution witnesses have been examined but they have not supported the prosecution case. The trial court has further reported that informant, doctor, I.O. and other witnesses are still to be examined. It has been mentioned in Para-13 of the petition that 15 witnesses have been proposed on behalf of the prosecution in charge sheet, so it appears that still 11 prosecution witnesses are to be examined in this case.

There is allegation against the petitioner that he caused murder of two persons and the aforesaid fact came in course of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14540 of 2016 (3) dt.03-08-2016 2/2 investigation in the statement of one injured Sunita Devi. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and, accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.859 of 2014, arising out of Dolbajja ( Kadawa) P.S.Case No. 11 of 2014, is again rejected. However, the trail court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably, within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order even by taking the case of the petitioner on day to day basis. It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period on account of laches of the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trail court itself.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) N.K/- U T