Ranjan Kumar Singh@Chandan@Chandan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1657 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2019 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== RANJAN KUMAR SINGH@CHANDAN@CHANDAN SINGH son of Braj Kishore Singh @ Sudhir Singh Resident of Village- Sakarpura, Ward No.- 18, P.S.- Bakhri, Distt.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr.Advocate Mr.Randhir Kumar No.1,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-02-2021 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, learned APP for the State. The petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Bakhri P.S. Case No. 171 of 2019 (G.R. No. 2138 of 2019) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.11.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 59649 of 2019. The petitioner has remained in jail custody in connection with the present case since 16.06.2019 and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

The report of the learned trial court has been received. It appears that the case was fixed for framing of charge on 18.02.2021 and the learned trial court has stated that about 9 months' time is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1657 of 2021(3) dt.24-02-2021 2/2 likely to be taken in conclusion of the trial upon full co-operation of the defence as well as the prosecution.

Taking into consideration that earlier prayer for bail was rejected after noticing the allegation against the petitioner and the materials on the record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. His prayer is thus, refused. However, this Court would expect that the trial court shall proceed with the trial on day to day basis, no longer date be fixed in the matter and trial be concluded preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The prosecution and the defence must co-operate in early conclusion of the trial and they would produce witnesses on the date fixed in the matter.

If the trial is not concluded within a period of six months for no reason attributable to the petitioner, he may renew his prayer for bail.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.