Nawhi Yadav @ Chhedi Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1938 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -66 Year- 1990 Thana -GOH District- AURANGABAD ======================================================
1. Nawhi Yadav @ Chhedi Yadav, Son of Late Ram Kishun Yadav, Resident of village - Banshi Bigha, P.S. Daudnagar, P.O. Arai, District - Aurangabad, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-02-2017 Heard the parties.
This application is for grant of bail in connection with S.Tr. No.242 of 1998/174 of 2015 (Arising out of Goh P.S.Case No.66 of 1990) for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is alleged misuse of 14 years. For the period from 2005-2010, he was in custody and thereafter, he could not make Pairvi. Another accused persons have been acquitted in this case and earlier to the absconding, the petitioner was in custody for about five years. Heard learned A.P.P. also.
Having heard both parties, From perusal of the record, it appears that the period of occurrence is 1990 and the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1938 of 2017 (3) dt.21-02-2017 2/2 had been granted bail in the year, 1999 and he faced trial till 2002 and thereafter, he left Pairvi of the case, due to which this case was separated, however, the other accused have already been acquitted in this case and he is accused in other cases also. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court concerned itself, who wil pass appropriate order without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U