Sunil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43051 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2015 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Singh, S/o Rajdeo Singh, Resident of Village- Gamarhiya, P.S.- Kasma, District- Aurangabad.

..........................................

...

Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI RAJESH KUMAR ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected twice vide order dated 29.01.2016 and 15.02.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48679 of 2015 and 4085 of 2017, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 11.05.2015 and up-till now only 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 24 chargesheet witnesses and as such in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. The petitioner is not named in the first information report, he has not been put on test identification parade and nothing has been recovered from his possession.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that on the basis of statement of the victim raid was conducted in flat no. 906 of Sharda Apaartment at Gomati Nagar, Lucknow

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43051 of 2017(2) dt.06-09-2017 2/2 from where the petitioner and other co-accused were apprehended with arms and further looted Audi car and other articles of the victim Dr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta and his wife were recovered besides other articles.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, finding no ground for reconsideration of the prayer of bail of the petitioner, again his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya.

However, considering the period of detention, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after taking the same on priority basis.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U