Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31355/2017rejected

Dhramdeo Singh @ Dharma v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-02Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31355 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -119 Year- 2015 Thana -LADANIA District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Dhramdeo Singh @ Dharma, Son of Shvjee Singh, Resident of VillagePachhar, P.S. - Jay Nagar, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Soban Asghar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Umeshnand Pandit (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail which was earlier rejected vide order dated 17.03.2016 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 5752 of 2016 which was disposed of along with Cr. Misc. No. 3341 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. No. 5846 of 2016 on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 12.08.2015. The petitioner was not caught at the spot, only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused he is suffering in custody and, as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that during investigation also the hands of the petitioner has been transpired and it was petitioner who has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31355 of 2017 (2) dt.02-08-2017 2/2 assaulted the deceased.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of the bail, again prayer of the bail of the petitioner stands rejected in S.Tr. No. 360 of 2015 arising out of Ladhaniya P.S. Case No. 119 of 2015 pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani.

However, considering the period of detention the trial court is directed to expedite and to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T