Banti Gorhi @ Banti Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21947 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -38 Year- 2013 Thana -BHAGALPUR GRP CASE DistrictBHAGALPUR ====================================================== Banti Gorhi @ Banti Mandal, Son of Bishwanath Gorhi @ Bishwanath Mandal, Resident of Village- Adarsh Nagar, Jichho Pokhar, Police StationSultanganj, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Masleh-Uddin Ashraf, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh 1, (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 28-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail which was earlier twice rejected vide order dated 30.10.2015 and 29.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23154 of 2015 and Cri. Misc. No. 24962 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 25.06.2014 and up till now no prosecution witness has been examined and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded and there was direction to conclude the trial within nine months in the order dated 29.06.2016 and the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21947 of 2017 (2) dt.28-06-2017 2/2 The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner is the assailant. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of the bail, again prayer of the bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with S.T. No. 634 of 2015 (c) arising out of Bhagalpur Rail Police Station Case No. 38 of 2013) pending in the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur.
However, considering the detention of the petitioner, the learned trial court is again directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within six months, form the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer for bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T