Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1109/2017rejected

Biresh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-18Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1109 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -32 Year- 2014 Thana -SHEIKHOPUR SARAI District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Biresh Prasad son of Late Ramsaran Mahton resident of village - Rahicha, P.S. - Shekhopur Sarai, Dist - Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Shekhopursarai P.S. Case No. 32/2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail which was earlier twice rejected by order dated 27.04.2015 and 01.02.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5122/2015 and Cr. Misc. No. 49069/2015 respectively on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 07.05.2014 and during trial the mother of the petitioner has not supported the prosecution version (Annexure-3) and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the Learned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1109 of 2017 (2) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 A.P.P. opposes by submitting that the trial is likely to be concluded and only doctor is to be examined.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for re-consideration of prayer of bail and considering the allegation that the petitioner is the assailant, again the prayer of bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

However, considering the detention of the petitioner, the trial court is again directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rakhi U T