Patna High CourtCR. MISC./65982/2018dismissed

Birendra Yadav @ Ranjit v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-06Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65982 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2017 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ====================================================== Birendra Yadav @ Ranjit, S/o Lachhu Yadav, Resident of Village-Kathautiya Kewal,P.S. Fatehpur,Distt.-Gaya ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Nagendra Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner in the present is seeking regular bail in connection with Sirdalla P.S. Case No. 146 of 2017 (S.Tr. No. 785 of 2017/ 166 of 2017) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected, the petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2017, therefore on the ground of his custody alone he may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has informed this Court that now the trial is at fag-end as only one witness i.e. the Investigating Officer who is required to be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65982 of 2018(5) dt.06-09-2019 2/2 produced on behalf of the prosecution on the next date i.e. 16.09.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner is the main assailant.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, considering the submission that now only one prosecution witness is required to be examined on the next date and thereafter the trial is likely to be concluded, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

The application is dismissed.

Let the trial of the case be expedited.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/ved U T