Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50782/2016rejected

Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2016-12-06Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50782 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -193 Year- 2013 Thana -MAKHDUMPUR District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Santosh Kumar, Son of Butu Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Balamu Bigha, P.S.- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail, which was earlier twice rejected vide orders dated 09.03.2015 and 04.01.2016 passed in Cri. Misc. Nos. 41456 of 2014 and 45249 of 2015 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 28.05.2014 up till now not a single prosecution witness has been examined and as such in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. It is also submitted that the informant is not an eye witness and in his further statement he has stated that the occurrence was narrated by his sister Raj Kumaria Devi, the trial has not been concluded within nine months from the date of commitment.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50782 of 2016 (2) dt.06-12-2016 2/2 The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that the trial has not been concluded but the petitioner is the assailant. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of bail, again prayer of bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 193 of 2013 (G.R. No. 1375/2013/S.Tr. No. 365 of 2015) pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Jehanabad. However, considering the period of detention of the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) siddharth/- U T