Bhikhari Sahni And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37759 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -124 Year- 2015 Thana -RIGA District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Bhikhari Sahni, son of Late Kewal Sahni.

2. Vijay Sahni, son of Bhikhari Sahni.

Resident of village-Riga, P.S. Riga, District-Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ----------- 05-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Riga P.S. Case No.124 of 2015, corresponding to Sessions Trial No.382 of 2015, registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sitamarhi. Earlier, the prayer of the petitioners for bail has been rejected by this Court by a common order dated 18.02.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. No.51037 of 2015 with Criminal Misc. No.52691 of 2015 on merit.

The report regarding the present stage of the trial and the time, which is likely to be consumed in concluding the trial, as called for vide order dated 21.09.2016 by this Court, has been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37759 of 2016 (3) dt.05-10-2016 2/2 received from the court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, from which it appears that the charge against he petitioners has been framed on 22.12.2015 and out of 15 witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined. The trial court expected that the case will be disposed of within one year. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of bail is again rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioners within one year. If the trial of the petitioners is not concluded within one year, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T