Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46802/2021rejected

Pravesh Manjhi @ Parvesh Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2021-09-29Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46802 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2019 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== PRAVESH MANJHI @ PARVESH MANJHI S/O NANHAK MANJHI R/o village- Bhagalpur, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar, No.2 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2020/77 of 2020 arising out of Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 361 of 2019 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. and later on, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added, which is pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions JudgeIII, Gaya. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 30662 of 2020 on 09.02.2021. Further, he contended that the trial is not in progress and petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2020.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46802 of 2021(3) dt.29-09-2021 2/2 Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that earlier prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected by this Court on merit, as contained in Annexure-1 to the bail application. There is no fresh ground in the present case. On perusal of report, as called for from the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Gaya, it appears that charge has already been framed and the case has been fixed for evidence.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case as also the report of the learned Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is again rejected. However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.

shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T