Raju Chouhan v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49606 of 2014 (3) dt.11-02-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49606 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -159 Year- 2012 Thana -MASAURHI District- PATNA ====================================================== RAJU CHOUHAN, SON OF LATE RAJENDRA CHOUHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SANGATPAR, NUNIATOLI, P.S.- MASAURHI, DISTRICT - PATNA.

.... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 159 of 2012 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

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 11.03.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28183 of 2013 by this Court with direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of the petitioner. It is further submitted that while the case of the petitioner has been committed to the court of sessions numbered as Sessions Trial No. 948 of 2013 pending in the court of Adhoc

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49606 of 2014 (3) dt.11-02-2015 Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna and charge has also been framed on 21.10.2013 but up till now only two witnesses have been examined, who have supported the prosecution case. The informant and other two non official witnesses are yet to be examined.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 35 dated 02.02.2015, from the court of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna, which shows that charge has been framed on 21.10.2013 and two witnesses have been examined, the informant and other two other non official witnesses are yet to be examined.

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. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within one year by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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