Santosh Kumar Singh @ Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43550 of 2014 (3) dt.28-01-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43550 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2012 Thana -MALSALAMI District- PATNA ====================================================== SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH @ SANTOSH KUMAR, SON OF BALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH R/O BUNDEL TOLI, P.S.- MALSALAMI, DISTRICT-PATNA.

.... .... PETITIONER.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Nr. Singh(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with S.T. No. 1378 of 2012 arising out of Malsalami P.S. Case No. 104 of 2012 registered under Sections 304(B), 201/34 and later on added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 09/ 2015 dated 08.01.2015, from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Patna City, which shows that up till now altogether seven witnesses including the informant have been examined. Two non-official witnesses Investigating Officer and the Doctor are yet to be examined and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43550 of 2014 (3) dt.28-01-2015 trial court expected that trial will be concluded within four months, if both the parties co-operates the court in disposal of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 01.04.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42621 of 2013 by this Court. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2012 for about two and half years.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the trial court 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 aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U