Beauty Devi @ Beauty Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57947 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2017 Thana- GURARU District- Gaya ====================================================== Beauty Devi @ Beauty Kumari Wife of Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar R/o- VILLAGE- TILARI, P.S.- GURARU, DISTT.- GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The Petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.Tr. No.258 of 2017 arising out of Gurauru P.S. Case No. 19 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail application of the petitioner has earlier rejected vide order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.28767 of 2022 with direction to expedite the Trial within nine months and liberty was granted that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move further for bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that the progress report of the Trial has been called for. Petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2017 and charge has already been framed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57947 of 2024(6) dt.19-03-2025 2/2

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that ground of rejection has been mentioned in the rejection order itself.

6. It transpires to this Court from the progress report that seven charge sheet witnesses have been examined out of eight charge sheet witnesses, only I.O. has to be examined.

7. In this background, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for regular bail is refused.

8. This matter is relating to District Gaya, I.O. has to be examined only, therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Gaya is hereby directed to do the needful so that the I.O. of this case, who is charge sheet witness be examined within two months from today.

9. Office is hereby directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Gaya. The A.P.P. for the State is also hereby directed to made communication of the order to the Superintendent of Police, Gaya by his own process.

10. Accordingly, the present bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) mdrashid/- U T