Patna High CourtCR. REV./594/2021dismissed

Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-02Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.594 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2018 Thana- KURTHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Anil Kumar, son of Arjun Bind, resident of Village- Manikpur, P.S.- Kurtha, District- Arwal.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Shiw Kumar Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner to obtain bail in connection with Kurtha (Manikpur) P.S. Case No. 229 of 2018 (Children Case No. 2/2019) registered for the offences punishable under Section 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 I.P.C. was added. Earlier his prayer for bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2021 passed in Cr. Revision No. 1491 of 2019.

While rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner, this Court had expected that the learned trial court shall conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.594 of 2021(2) dt.02-03-2022 2/2 the trial has not concluded, however on opposition made by learned counsel for the informant it is not controverted that nine prosecution witnesses have already been examined and now only three witnesses including two seizure list witnesses have remained to be examined.

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner with reference to the detail reasons prescribed in the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by this Court.

Having regard to the fact that the nine prosecution witnesses have already been examined and then the trial itself is likely to come to an end within a reasonable time, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Let the learned trial court keep the records on shorter dates. The prosecution must produce all the remaining witnesses within two months from the date of communication of this order. All endeavours be made to conclude the trial within four months from the date of communication of this order. This application stands disposed off accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.