Niraj Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53887 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2016 Thana -NARDIGANJ District- NAWADA ======================================================

1. Niraj Prasad Son of Shiv Dayal Mahto Resident of Village - Kahuara, P.S. - Nardiganj, District - Nawada.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh For the informant ; Mr. Umesh Kumar Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-01-2017 The petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2016 in connection with Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 25 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 304B/120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been implicated in the present case only because he happens to be the husband of the deceased; no specific allegation has been alleged against the petitioner rather the main allegation has been attributed to brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 27.06.2016.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. Learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53887 of 2016 (3) dt.25-01-2017 2/2 informant has submitted that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are materials against the petitioner so as to suggest his involvement in the present case. He further submitted that now the case has already been committed to the Court of Sessions.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence and now since the case has already been committed to the Court of Sessions, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner, the privilege of regular bail, it is accordingly rejected.

However, learned court below is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months. However, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his bail application, which will be considered by learned court below on its own merit, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U