Baljit Kumar @ Baljit Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38873 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2020 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Baljit Kumar @ Baljit Kumar Sharma Son Of Kaushal Kishore Thakur Resident Of Village- Kohra, P.S.- Makdampur (TEHTA), District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhav Raj, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr.Sunil Srivastava, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 19-07-2021 Heard Mr. Madhav Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2020 registered for the offence under Section 302, 201, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Although learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue the case on it's own merit and did not disclose the fact that in this case all the witnesses have been examined in course of trial and the case is now fixed for final hearing before the learned trial court, learned counsel for the informant has brought to the noticed of this court that in fact the case is pending in the learned trial court only for hearing and it is likely to be concluded very soon.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38873 of 2020(4) dt.19-07-2021 2/2 Learned counsel for the informant has also brought to the notice of this court that prayer for bail of the co-accused Pappu Kumar @ Birendra has been rejected by learned coordinate Bench of this Court on 26.05.2021 in Cr. Misc. No. 40057/2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner when called upon to say that as to why this fact has not been disclosed in the petition, learned counsel is unable to satisfy this court. He, however, undertakes that in future he will be very particular about all these informations. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case wherein now the case is fixed for final hearing before the learned trial court and the prayer for bail of the co-accused has been rejected, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused. Trial court is expected to proceed with the hearing and conclude the trial preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application stands disposed off.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- 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'.