Bijendra Yadav @ Bijendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 36553 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2020 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== BIJENDRA YADAV @ BIJENDRA PRASAD YADAV SON OF LATE MOTILAL YADAV R/O- WARD NO.-12, IMAMGANJ PHENGLASS, P.S.- RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijay Kumar Pathak Mr.Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 03-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in Raghopur Police Station Case No 208 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 504, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity, IPC) and later on added with Section 302 of IPC.

Prayer for bail has been renewed. Earlier prayer for bail was rejected by this Court by order dated 14.07.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4523 of 2021 (Annexure 1) considering the injuries sustained by the deceased, which injuries were attributed to the petitioner.

The report from the trial Court dated 10.04.2023 has been received.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36553 of 2022(5) dt.03-05-2023 2/2 Petitioner's counsel submits that one prosecution witness has been examined.

It appears that there are 13 charge-sheeted witnesses which are to be examined in this case.

Since examination of witnesses has commenced and considering the injuries attributed to the petitioner and the fact that prayer for bail has already been rejected by this Court on 14.07.2021, this Court is not inclined to take a different view. However, considering the custody since 09.09.2020, this Court would observe that trial Court should make all efforts to conclude the trial as early as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment.

The petitioner would be under obligation to cooperate with the trial. If the trial is not concluded within 6 months, the petitioner would at liberty to approach this Court. With the above observation, prayer for bail is again rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H/uttam/- U