Krishna Yadav @ Kishan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.804 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2014 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Krishna Yadav @ Kishan S/o Sheo Janam Yadav resident of Village - Dorwa, P.S. - Dulhin Bazar, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No. 780 of 2016, arising out of Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 107 of 2014, registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Danapur, Patna. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was refused on merit by this Court on 24.01.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 229 of 2017. The petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2016, but the trial of the petitioner has not been concluded.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.804 of 2018(3) dt.28-03-2018 2/2 A report, as called for, has been received to the Court of Addl. Session Judge-VI, Danapur through letter No. 37, dated 23.03.2018, which indicates that after framing the Charge against the petitioner on 24.01.2017, five witnesses have been examined, I.O and Doctor are yet to be examined and expected that if the parties co-operate, the trial may be concluded within six months.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merit, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected. However, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Danapur is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T