Haresh Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36619 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2016 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Haresh Mishra Son of Shivajit Mishra Resident of village- Sonbarsa, Police Station- Shahpur, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-02-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove all the defects as pointed out by office within four weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with S. Tr. No. 390 of 2016 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 48 of 2016 registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned Senior Counsel submits that there is allegation of firing against all the FIR named accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36619 of 2020(2) dt.20-02-2021 2/2 persons. Petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2016. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein this petitioner is said to be the main assailant and his prayer for regular bail has been rejected by a learned coordinate Bench of this Court, learned counsel for the informant has brought to the notice of this court that the trial has already begun and six prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the trial is likely to be concluded in near future, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

The prayer for regular bail of the appellant is, thus, refused.

Let the trial be concluded preferably within a period of six months from today.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.