Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32481/2017rejected

Mahendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-13Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32481 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2016 Thana- Sherghati District- Gaya ====================================================== Mahendra Yadav son of Sheo Balak Yadav, Resident of Village- Nagar, Police Station- Hunterganj, District- Chatra (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bakshi S.R.P.Sinha, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

13-09-2017 Heard Sri Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Md. Fahimuddin, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

This is the second attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier, the prayer for bail of petitioner was rejected by order dated 16-12-2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45828 of 2016.

In this case, by order dated 23-08-2017, a report was called for from the court below regarding stage of the case, which has been received and kept at flag 'X'. The report dated 07-09-2017 of the learned court below suggests that evidence is going on and out of 8 charge-sheeted witnesses, 2 witnesses

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32481 of 2017(4) dt.13-09-2017 2/2 have already been examined.

Considering the fact that evidence is going on, there is no reason to review my earlier order.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail again stands rejected. Considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 17-06-2016, while rejecting the prayer for bail, it is desirable to observe that the learned trial Judge as well as prosecution may take appropriate step so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.

The concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to ensure production of witnesses as and when required by the trial court.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U T