Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5877/2017rejected

Yogendra Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-08Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5877 of 2017 (2) dt.08-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5877 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -69 Year- 2014 Thana -MADHUBAN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Yogendra Sahani S/o Kailash Sahani, Resident of Village- Naika Tola, Police Station - Madhuban, District- East- Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 02/ 08.03.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

The impugned order goes to show that apart from Medical officer and I.O, two independent witnesses have been left to be examined. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this court taking nature of the allegation as well as materials found against him in course of investigation.

Therefore, again, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, his prayer for bail in connection with Session trial no. 455/2015 arising out of Madhuban P.S. Case no. 69/2014 pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge XI, East Champaran at Motihari stands rejected.

However, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5877 of 2017 (2) dt.08-03-2017 may renew his prayer for bail before the trial court itself. Let copy of this order be sent to Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari with direction to him to ensure the presence of remaining prosecution witnesses before the concerned court within a reasonable period so that trial court could conclude the trial of the petitioner within the time as fixed by this court. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J) U T