Patna High CourtCR. MISC./62666/2021rejected

Ramesh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2021-12-08Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62666 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2018 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya ====================================================== RAMESH PRASAD Son of Ramnandan Prasad Resident of VillageShankarpur, Police Station-Neemchak Bathani, District-Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Murli Dhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 166 of 2018 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was twice rejected by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 51110 of 2019 on 19.11.2019 and Cr. Misc. No. 36511 of 2020 on 17.03.2021. Petitioner is under custody since 24.01.2019.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that earlier prayer of the petitioner for bail was twice rejected by this Court on merit on 19.11.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 51110 of 2019

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62666 of 2021(3) dt.08-12-2021 2/2 and on 17.03.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36511 of 2020. Now, on perusal of the report as called for from the Trial Court, it appears that the present status of this case is awaiting for the execution report of the process issued u/s 83 of Cr.P.C. against co-accused persons who is father and wife of the petitioner. Hence, there is no fresh ground to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is again rejected. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) utkarsh/- U T