Md. Azmal Rain @ Md. Azmal Rayeen v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2974 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-354 Year-2019 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== MD. AZMAL RAIN @ MD. AZMAL RAYEEN, son of Md. Alam Rain @ Md. Alam, resident of village-Korahiya @ Korahia, Police Station-Jai Nagar, District Madhubabni ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State Mr. J.K.Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 07-07-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking that all defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof.

2. The petitioner, who is in custody since 23.07.2019, has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Jai Nagar P.S.Case No. 354 of 2019 (S.T.No.465 of 2019), having earlier been rejected by order dated 17.03.2020 in Cr. Misc. No. 83960 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has already completed almost two years in custody. It is reiterated that except on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2974 of 2021(5) dt.07-07-2021 2/2 theory of the last seen, there is no other material against the petitioner. It is submitted that on the last seen theory alone, the prosecution cannot succeed in absence of other materials. It is also submitted, on instructions, that trial is ongoing and two prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State, this Court is not inclined to take a different view in the matter of granting bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petition stands dismissed.

5. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) HR/- U T