Aditya Baitha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8840 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2019 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== ADITYA BAITHA Son of Rambali Baitha Resident of Village - Harpursari, P.S. - Parsauni, District - Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 10-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with Riga P.S. Case No. 154/2019 registered for the offences under Sections 302/201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Sitamarhi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected in Cr. Misc. No. 84566/2019 after noticing the materials appearing on the record. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected after noticing the materials indicating that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8840 of 2021(4) dt.10-03-2021 2/2 petitioner had taken away the deceased and killed him in conspiracy with the co-accused, the trial court report at this stage indicating that the case is fixed for evidence and summons have been issued to the witnesses, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of regular bail to the petitioner. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months from today. The prosecution shall cooperate in producing the witnesses on the date fixed in the matter.

If the trial of this case is not concluded within the aforesaid period for no fault on the part of the petitioner, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.