Rajesh Paswan @ Kishore Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38084 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-449 Year-2017 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== Rajesh Paswan @ Kishore Paswan son of Ramdeo Paswan @ Dasrath Paswan resident of Village Padmawat, P.S. Jamui, District Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. S.K. Lal, Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocates.

For the State :

Mr. Ram Chandra Sahani, APP For the informant :

Mr. Akash Raj, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2021 Heard Mr. S.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Akash Raj, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Ram Chandra Sahani Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail inasmuch as his earlier bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 25298/2019 by order dated 23.05.2019.

3. The allegation, as per First Information Report, is that the petitioner has set the daughter of the informant on fire.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2018 and out of eight charge-sheet witnesses, only one witness has been examined

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38084 of 2020(3) dt.16-03-2021 2/2 who has not supported the prosecution case.

5. This Court vide its order dated 05.02.2021 called for a report from learned lower court regarding stage of the trial and in pursuance thereof, the learned lower court vide its letter no.12/2021 has submitted its report stating therein that out of eight charge-sheet witnesses, only one witness has been examined and within the period of 3-4 months, it is expected that the trial of the present case will be concluded.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the informant and State vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that the trial has already begun, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is, hereby, rejected at this stage.

8. However, if so advised, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial does not conclude. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T