Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6875/2017rejected

Bhola Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-16Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6875 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -202 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAGARIA District- KHAGARIA ======================================================

1. Bhola Yadav Son of Late Bishuni Yadav, Resident of Village- Mathar, Police Station- Khagaria (Muffasil), District- Khagria. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP 65 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-05-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

This is a petition for grant of regular bail for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner and others had committed rape on Sudha Devi and Pinki Kumari, the daughters of the informant. For that a criminal case was lodged earlier. To pressurize the withdrawal of aforesaid case, the petitioner caused fire arm injury and death of sister-in-law of the informant in the house of the informant in presence of the informant and other family members.

Submission of the petitioner is that in rape case, the petitioner has already been allowed bail. He is in custody since 13.04.2015 and the report of the learned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6875 of 2017 (4) dt.16-05-2017 2/2 trial Judge would reveal that though charges has even framed against the petitioner on 23.01.2016, however, no witness has turned up up-till now.

Considering the nature of allegation and list of criminal cases against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present. The prayer for bail is refused.

The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it, without allowing long and unnecessary adjournment of the case and if the trial is not concluded within nine months, from today, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew the prayer.

(Birendra Kumar, J) SA/- U √ T √