Sadre Alam @ Md. Sadre Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8018 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2017 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Sadre Alam @ Md. Sadre Alam, Son of Md. Jafir @ Md. Jafir Shah, Resident of Village - Drapatti, P.S. - Karja, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2021 As prayed for, let the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within four weeks of starting of the Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2019, arising out of Karja P.S. Case No. 145 of 2017, registered under Sections 341, 307 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and later on, Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been added, pending in the court of 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband of the deceased and he is in custody since 04.04.2018.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8018 of 2021(3) dt.07-04-2021 2/2 The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 16.01.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 81934 of 2019 by this Court.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 51 dated 28.02.2021, from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Muzaffarpur, which shows that out of eleven charge sheet witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and remaining witnesses are yet to be examined and also expected that the trial of the petitioner is likely to be concluded within six months on co-operation of both sides.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of bail stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months from today by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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