Patna High CourtCR. MISC./712/2015rejected

Jitendra Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2015-03-25Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.712 of 2015 (2) dt.25-03-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.712 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -61 Year- 2012 Thana -GHOGHARDIHA District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== JITENDRA SAH, SON OF JAY PRAKASH SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALUA, PS PHULPARAS, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

.... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is accused in connection with S. Tr. No. 85 of 2013 arising out of Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No. 61 of 2012 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 20.03.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35123 of 2013 by this Court and he is in custody since 11.01.2013. It is further submitted that co-accused, Chunnu Sah, has already been granted bail on 13.11.2013 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45392 of 2013 by a Bench of this Court.

Learned counsel for the informant submits that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.712 of 2015 (2) dt.25-03-2015 all the charge sheeted witnesses have been examined except the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who are yet to be examined. It is further submitted that taking into consideration the same facts the prayer for bail of co-accused, Raju Mishra, has been rejected on 09.01.2015 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 763 of 2013 by a Bench of this Court.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T