Azad Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58090 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2008 Thana- Chainpur District- Bhabhua (Kaimur) ====================================================== Azad Sah S/o Late Amirullah Sah @ Amrulah Sah, R/o Village- Koendi, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-01-2018 Heard Sri Rajani Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

This is the 2nd attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier, the prayer for bail of petitioner was rejected on 06-12-2016, vide Cr. Misc. No. 42301 of 2016. The petitioner is in custody since 30-03-2016 in a case, which was registered in the year 2008, vide Chainpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2008, for offence under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In this case, by order dated 13-12-2017, a report was called for from the court below regarding stage of the case, which has been received and kept at flag 'A'. The report dated 19-12-2017 sent under the signature of Sri P.R.K.Sinha, learned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58090 of 2017(3) dt.03-01-2018 2/2 Addl. Sessions Judge - IV, Bhabua makes it clear that out of 8 chargesheeted witnesses, 3 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Meaning thereby that trial is going on. Accordingly, there is no reason to review my earlier order. The prayer for bail again stands rejected. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 30-03-2016, while dismissing, it is desirable to observe that learned Trial Judge may take appropriate step so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. The prosecution is required to produce witnesses as and when required by the trial court. The Court expects that concerned Superintendent of Police will ensure production of witnesses during the trial as and when required by the trial court. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police for its compliance.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U T