Anil Roy @ Anil Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25750 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -85 Year- 2013 Thana -MEERGANJ District- PURNIA ====================================================== Anil Roy @ Anil Rai, Son of Sri Sadhu Roy, Resident of Village- Sanjha Ghat, P.S.- Mirganj, District- Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Umeshnand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03/ 16-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner being the husband of the victim has renewed the prayer for bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation in the F.I.R. is to the effect that the petitioner killed the daughter of the informant after two years of marriage by administering poison to her, for nonfulfillment of dowry demand. The petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2014.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25750 of 2018 (3) dt.16-05-2018 The petitioner's first prayer for bail was rejected vide order dated 03.03.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7652 of 2015, thereafter vide order dated 23.11.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27262 of 2015 with a direction to learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea to conclude the trial within a period of four months and ultimately vide order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 58108 of 2017 on the basis of report of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea dated 15.12.2017 to the effect that the matter is fixed for final argument on 16.12.2017 and the trial is likely to be concluded by March, 2018. The last report of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea dated 08.05.2018 at Flag 'P' reflects that due to change of the P.O. the argument could not be concluded.

It is expected from learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea to conclude the argument, without any adjournment being granted to either side, within a period of four weeks.

Considering the fact that the trial is at the stage of conclusion, this Court is not inclined to revise the earlier order. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 441 of 2015, arising out of Mirganj P.S. Case No. 85 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25750 of 2018 (3) dt.16-05-2018 Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea.

If the trial is not concluded within the period of four weeks then the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea will submit a report, stating therein as to under what circumstances, the trial could still not be concluded. With the aforesaid terms, this application stands disposed of.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T