Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9908/2017rejected

Kailu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-08Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9908 of 2017 (2) dt.08-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9908 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -96 Year- 2011 Thana -MUNGER MUFFASIL District- MUNGER ====================================================== Kailu Yadav, Son of Late Lakhan Yadav, Resident of village - Taufir Mai, P.S. Muffasil, District - Munger .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Manoj Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 18.04.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 57301 of 2015, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 29.11.2014 and only allegation against the petitioner is that he shot the deceased Bipin Yadav in his right hand and as such the petitioner is not the assailant, Pampam Singh has been allowed bail and further the trial has not been concluded within nine months as directed by this Court and up-till-now only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and as such in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. Learned APP submits that this is a case of triple murder and the petitioner was also involved in the crime and he has shot the deceased Bipin Yadav in his right hand. Prayer of bail of co-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9908 of 2017 (2) dt.08-03-2017 accused Guddu Yadav and Maheshwar Singh has been refused by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected.

However, learned trial court is again directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T