Upendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3813 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2019 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== UPENDRA PASWAN Son of Late Bipat Paswan Resident of Village - Bakhri ward no. 17, P.S.- Bakhri, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bakhri P.S. Case No. 12 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 326, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 69051 of 2019. As per the report received from the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Begusarai, it is evident that the case is fixed for framing of charge and there is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3813 of 2021(6) dt.14-07-2021 2/2 17.01.2019.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on merit and now no fresh ground is available on record to reconsider the prayer for bail of this petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail may be rejected.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and try to conclude the same preferably within a period of six months form the date of this order. (Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T