Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3291/2017rejected

Gorakh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-12Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3291 of 2017 (4) dt.12-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3291 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1 Year- 2005 Thana -PIPRA District- PATNA ====================================================== Gorakh Paswan, Son of Rajdeo Paswan, Resident of Village- Deokuli, P.S.- Pipra, District- patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 1 of 2005, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 22.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18479 of 2016 by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2015. Further submission is that co-accused, Brind Singh, Lathi Singh and Sudhir Singh have acquitted during trial by the court of Additional Sessions Judge-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3291 of 2017 (4) dt.12-04-2017 IX, Patna, on 03.08.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 2008 and at that time, petitioner was out side the village, so he could not appear in the trial court.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 137 dated 10.03.2017, from the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mashaurhi, which shows that the case of the petitioner has been committed to the court of Session on 07.03.2017.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

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