Bhim Yadav @ Hari Mohan Yadav @ Pahadi Ful @ Lulha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9443 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== BHIM YADAV @ HARI MOHAN YADAV @ PAHADI FUL @ LULHA Son of Late Kheman Yadav, Resident of Village - Mainka, P.S.- Imamganj, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Veena Rani Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual court proceedings. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 427, 379, 302, 124(A), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act.
Vide order dated 04.10.2018 earlier bail application was rejected in Cr. Misc. No.41924/2018 and vide order dated 12.07.2021, a report was called for from the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Gaya, which is kept at Flag 'R' in which it is stated that 12 prosecution witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. Due to COVID-19, no any prosecution witnesses has produced till date.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9443 of 2021(3) dt.10-09-2021 2/2 Considering the report of the learned court below, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Roshanganj P.S. Case No. 10/2013, corresponding to S.Tr. No. 301/2019 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Gaya.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from today and both the parties are directed to extend their full cooperation in early conclusion of the trial. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. At the same time, the S.P. of concerned district is directed to ensure the presence of witnesses in the court, so that the trial may be concluded within time limit given by this Court. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) amitkumar/- U T