Shatrughan Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50808 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2020 Thana- MORKAHI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Shatrughan Mandal Son of Late Awadh Mandal R/O Vill.- Balaur, P.S.- Morakahi, Dist.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.K. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Morkahi PS Case No. 06 of 2020 registered under sections 302/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 13.01.2020 by the informant, Gautam Mandal.

3. The informant has alleged in the FIR that the accused persons shot at on the head and chest of his father causing his immediate death. He made specific allegation against the petitioner of firing on the head of the informant's father. The case was registered on 13.01.2020 whereas as per the statement made in paragraph-9 of the bail application, the petitioner came into judicial custody on 22.08.2021 i.e. almost a year and eight months later despite the fact that the specific allegation was alleged against him.

4. In view of the facts that earlier the petitioner had moved to this Court which came to be rejected in Cr. Misc. No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50808 of 2024(3) dt.20-09-2024 2/2 32431 of 2023 on 21.06.2023 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the same within nine months, the same has not been concluded and, as such, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Vide order dated 20.07.2024, a report was called for regarding the stage of the trial and as per letter dated 24.07.2024 received from Additional Sessions Judge-V, Khagaria, five witnesses have been examined but the trial has still not been concluded.

6. The petitioner is in custody since the year 2021 and in that background, it is essential for the trial court to take the matter seriously and conclude the trial at an earliest. A year ago, direction was already there and the reason has not been assigned as to why within the stipulated period, the trial could not be completed. In that background, the trial court is directed to take immediate steps for concluding the trial.

7. The present bail application stands rejected.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria for his perusal and necessary instruction.

(Rajiv Roy, J) perwez U T