Ripti Sharma @ Ripti Kumar Sharma @ Ripti Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26839 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -34 Year- 2016 Thana -SACHIWALAYA District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Ripti Sharma @ Ripti Kumar Sharma @ Ripti Kumar, son of Late Anjani Kumar Sharma, resident of Mohalla- Bhuwalpur (Fatehpur), Police StationNathnagar, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Masleh-Uddin Ashraf For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Mustaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sachiwalaya P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The regular bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1299 of 2017 with a liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months if no substantive progress is made in the trial.

Report regarding present stage of the trial has been received in which it is mentioned that case is pending for recording of cross examination of I.O. of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26839 of 2018 (4) dt.20-06-2018 2/2 petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2016.

Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the prosecution case has been closed and the case is pending for final argument and is likely to be concluded very soon. In view of submission of the parties, and the report of the court below, this Court finds that substantive progress has already been made in the trial and the case of the prosecution has already been closed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. As such prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

The court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of this order and send compliance report to the learned Sessions Judge after concluding the trial.

Petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself after six months, in the event the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period. The trial court will in that event give reason in the bail order for not concluding the trial within six months.

(Sanjay Priya, J) sushma/- U T