Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9076/2016rejected

Mehadi Hassan @ Motu v. The State Of Bihar

2016-05-04Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9076 of 2016 (2) dt.04-05-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9076 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -185 Year- 2014 Thana -AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Mehadi Hassan @ Motu Son of Ushuf Khan Resident of Mohalla - Ansar Bagh, Tikari, P.S. Aurangabad, District - Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s Mr. R.N.Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04.05.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation against the petitioner that he threw acid causing burn injury to the informant but submission on behalf of the petitioner is that in course of medical examination, no injury said to be caused by acid was found and, as a matter of fact, injury said to be caused by hot liquid was found on the person of the informant. It is further submitted that charge against the petitioner was framed on 2.9.2015 but in spite of giving several adjournments and issuance of processes, not a single prosecution witness could be examined. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and hence, his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions trial

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9076 of 2016 (2) dt.04-05-2016 no. 350/2015 corresponding to Aurangabad Town P.S. case no.185/2014 is, again, rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably, within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court itself.

Shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J) U T