Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53754/2023rejected

Ayodhya Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-31Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53754 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-1992 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Ayodhya Singh S/O Late Ram Lakshman Singh R/O Village- Adampur, Ps. Danapur, Dist. Patna 2.

Sanjay Singh S/O Late Yogendra Singh R/O Village- Adampur, Ps. Danapur, Dist. Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 31-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 253 of 1992 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is a case of year 1992. Both the petitioners were granted bail but due to miscommunication between the pairvikaar and the petitioners, bail bond of the petitioners were cancelled on 4.5.2000. Both the petitioners were arrested on 22.5.2023.

4. It is a case of huge misuse of privilege of bail by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53754 of 2023(3) dt.31-10-2023 2/2 the petitioners. Petitioners are not appearing in this case till the year 2000 so the trial could not be commenced on time and trial is delayed.

5. As per progress report, charge has been framed against the petitioners on 14.07.2023 and it is mentioned in report that trial is likely to be concluded within six months.

6. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submitted that there is a huge misuse of privilege of bail by the petitioners and according to trial court report, the trail may be concluded within six months. There is a willful and mala fide intention of the petitioners and due to their non-appearance, the trial has hampered.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is huge misuse of bail, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and, as such, their prayer of bail stands rejected.

8. The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months as mentioned in progress report, failing which, the petitioners will be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T