Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49701/2017rejected

Md. Meraj v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-22Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49701 of 2017 (3) dt.22-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49701 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2015 Thana -MADHUBAN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Md. Meraj, Son of Md. Nejam, Resident of village- Gheghawa, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s Mr. Bisheshwar Ram ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22.11.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected directing the trial court to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same, preferably, within six months.

However, trial court has reported that out of nine prosecution witnesses, five prosecution witnesses have already been examined and trial of the petitioner is pending for recording the evidence of remaining four prosecution witnesses. Trial court has also reported that steps to procure attendance of remaining prosecution witnesses have already been taken.

Since it is serious case of section 304B of the IPC and burn injuries are said to have been found on the person of the deceased, again, I am not inclined to release the petitioner and hence, his prayer

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49701 of 2017 (3) dt.22-11-2017 for bail in connection with Session trial no. 857 of 2016 arising out of Madhuban P.S. Case no. 25/2015 pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge IX, East Champaran at Motihari stands rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period of four months due to laches of the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial court itself. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J) U T