Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3688/2021dismissed

Chunni Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

2021-07-30Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3688 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2018 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ DistrictMadhepura ======================================================

1. Chunni Kumari daughter of Arjun Paswan.

2. Urmila Devi @ Nirmala Devi wife of Arjun Paswan, both residents of village-Uda, P.S. Uda Kishunganj, District-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Durgesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-07-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual court proceeding.

The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In pursuance to the order dated 01.06.2021, status report of trial in connection with Uda Kishunganj P.S. Case No. 304 of 2018, S.T. No. 13 of 2020/S.T. No. 32 of 2020 has been received and kept at Flag-A, in which it is stated that the case is pending for evidence of nine official witnesses and for securing their attendance for evidence in this case summons were given on 09.06.2021 and if prosecution will produce all nine official witnesses on regular interval, the present case is likely to be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3688 of 2021(4) dt.30-07-2021 2/2 concluded within nine months.

Considering the present stage of trial, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their payer for bail is rejected in connection with Uda Kishunganj P.S. Case No. 304 of 2018, S.T. No. 13 of 2020/S.T. No. 32 of 2020 pending before the court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madhepura.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from the date of initiation of normal physical proceeding and /or through Video Conferencing. Petitioners are also at liberty to renew their prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period as aforesaid.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T