Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16368/2017rejected

Subodh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-19Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16368 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -305 Year- 2014 Thana -SULTANGANJ District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Subodh Yadav, son of Late Sitaram Yadav, Resident of village - Nawada, P.S. Sultanganj, District - Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER --------------- 19-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No.305 of 2014 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. No.56345 of 2015 taking into consideration the direct allegation against the petitioner to shot fire at the deceased, the father of the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2015 but till today, no prosecution witness has been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16368 of 2017 (3) dt.19-07-2017 2/2 examined.

The report, as called for vide order dated 21.06.2017, regarding the stage of the case, has been received from the court of the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, through letter no.109 dated 07.07.2017 from which it appears that the charge was framed in the case on 14.06.2016 and the summons have been issued to the witnesses on 21.06.2017 for their evidence. I find no reason to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail and, accordingly, his prayer for grant of bail stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably, within one year by taking all effective steps for producing the prosecution witnesses.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T