Hariom Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40969 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2021 Thana- ANTICHAK District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== HARIOM CHAUDHARY, Male, aged about 35 years, SON OF LATE VISHWANATH CHAUDHARY, RO VILLAGE NANDGOLA PS ANTICHAK DISTRICT BHAGALPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Poddar Suresh Gandhi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-08-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Antichak P.S. Case No. 41 of 2021 dated 21.11.2021 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. This is second prayer for the relief of regular bail. Petitioner's earlier prayer for the said relief was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.30114 of 2022.

4. The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner has been languishing in jail since 22.11.2021, all the witnesses of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40969 of 2023(4) dt.25-08-2023 2/2 prosecution have been examined and the case is running for recording the statement of the accused and there may be some delay in final disposal of the petitioner's case.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer and submitted that against the petitioner, there is serious allegation of having set his wife on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil upon her which resulted in serious burn injuries to her and consequently she died.

6. Considering the seriousness of the allegation appearing against the petitioner and mainly the fact that as per the report of the trial court, the trial of the petitioner is running for recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., so at this stage, it will not be proper to enlarge him on bail. Accordingly, his bail prayer again stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of this petitioner and take steps to conclude the same in the next four months. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the said period despite his cooperation, then he may renew his bail prayer.

(Shailendra Singh, J) Sanjay/- U T