Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7738/2017rejected

Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

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

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7738 of 2017 (3) dt.12-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7738 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2015 Thana -NAYA RAM NAGAR District- MUNGER ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Yadav, son of Late Bhuneshwar Yadav, resident of VillageHalimpur, P.S.- Naya Ram Nagar, District- Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Binod Kumar 2, 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 Sessions Case No. 154 of 2016, arising out of Naya Ram Nagar (Safiya Sarai) P.S. Case No. 104 of 2015, registered under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B) a/c, 26 (i)(ii) of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Munger. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 03.05.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17854 of 2016 by this Court. No any fresh ground has been raised in the present petition to reconsider the prayer for bail. A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 35 dated 23.03.2017 from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7738 of 2017 (3) dt.12-04-2017 court of I/C Additional Sessions Judge-III, Munger, which shows that Sessions Trial No. 154 of 2016 arising out Naya Ram Nagar (Safiya Sarai) P.S. Case No. 104 of 2015 is running for evidence of prosecution witness.

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 trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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