Pankaj Tiwari @ Mantu Tiwari @ Mantu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.76649 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2015 Thana- KOCHAS District- Rohtas ====================================================== Pankaj Tiwari @ Mantu Tiwari @ Mantu son of Sri Banarsi Tiwari, Resident of Village- Fulli, P.O. Dighita, P.S. Kochas, District Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kulanand Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Mithilesh Kumar Khare, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-02-2019 From perusal of the order dated 27.10.2017 it appears that only four witnesses had been examined in the trial. In the report dated 24.01.2019 position is the same. From the report it is also apparent that altogether there are 12 witnesses in the charge-sheet including the official witnesses. In view of the aforesaid report and order dated 27.10.2017 it appears that in between October, 17 and January, 2019 no other witnesses have been examined. Such a situation cannot be countenanced as the trial has unnecessarily and inordinarily been delayed. Let the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas ensure that all steps are taken so that the witnesses may be produced to expedite the trial.

Earlier on 12.04.2018 the petitioner's prayer was rejected. Prayer has been renewed. The petitioner who is the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.76649 of 2018(3) dt.13-02-2019 2/2 husband of the victim owes prime responsibility for safety and dignity of his wife. While rejecting the petitioner's prayer earlier this Court has taken note of the fact that neither intimation was given to the family of the victim nor any steps taken for providing medical assistance for treatment to the victim and without informing the family of the victim body had also been cremated.

Considering the aforesaid circumstance, this Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail for the present. However, in light of the directions today it is expected that the Superintendent of Police shall take all effective measures to ensure that the trial be expedited and witnesses are produced without any delay.

Prayer is rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Prakash/- U