Meghu Ram And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41939 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -119 Year- 2013 Thana -PAKRIDAYAL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Meghu Ram S/o Late Jangal Ram

2. Manohar Ram S/o Meghua Ram Both are resident of Village - Thikn Math, P.S. - Pakaridayal Dist. - East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 417 of 2014 arising out of Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 119 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366A and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act and accordingly the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and charges were framed under Sections 366/34, 363/34, 120-B/34, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41939 of 2015 (3) dt.04-11-2015 2/2 of Child from Sexual Offences Act.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2014 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 3316 of 2014.

It is contended that though the petitioners are in custody since 13.09.2013, only one witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution till date.

Be that as it may, regard being had to the reasons assigned in the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2014, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners for the present. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In case the trial is not concluded within the time stipulated hereinabove for no fault on the part of the accused persons, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the trial court itself.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T