Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53627/2022bail rejected

Lakkhi Soren v. The State Of Bihar

2022-12-21Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53627 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2019 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar ====================================================== LAKKHI SOREN, S/o Talwa Soren @ Talo Soren Resident of VillageBisahriya, P.S.- Korha, District- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Musowir, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umanath Mishra, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Korha P.S. Case No. 120 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Katihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 23.11.2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16456 of 2021 with observation to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within nine month. On 23.11.2022, this Court had called for the report from the trial Court with reference to the stage of the trial. It has been communicated by the learned trial Court vide letter No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53627 of 2022(3) dt.21-12-2022 2/2 220, dated 09.12.2022 that the official witnesses have already been examined, however, the prosecution witness are not appearing in the present case on the date fixed by the trial Court. In view of the reported submitted by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, Katihar, the Superintendent of Police, Katihar is directed to produce all the prosecution witnesses on the date fixed by the trial Court. The trial court is directed to conclude trial well within the period of six months taking into consideration the provision as laid down in the POCSO Act.

If no substantial progress takes place in trial, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six month.

Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. (Purnendu Singh, J) manish/- U T