Balram Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.732 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2014 Thana -SAMHO District- BEGUSARAI =========================================================== Balram Chaudhary, S/o Late Makhru Chaudhary, Resident of Samho Akbarpur, P.S.- Samho, District- Begusarai.

.... .... Appellant

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. This criminal appeal has been filed under the provision of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai by which he rejected the bail petition of the appellant on the ground that trial of the appellant has already commenced. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that earlier the bail prayer of the petitioner was rejected by this court vide order dated 21.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23432 of 2016 on the assumption that petitioner happened to be main assailant but the F.I.R. goes to show that informant is not an eye witness of the alleged

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.732 of 2017 dt.12-07-2017 2/2 occurrence and, moreover, the F.I.R. was lodged after one day of the alleged occurrence and no explanation regarding the aforesaid delay has been given in the F.I.R but I am not, at all, convinced with the aforesaid submissions because in order dated 21.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23432 of 2016, the bail of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that having similar allegation, prayer of bail of co-accused had already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this court. Moreover, it is obvious from the impugned order that trial of the appellant has already commenced and, therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere into the impugned order.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed and the impugned order dated 25.01.2017 is, hereby, confirmed. However, the learned trial court should expedite the trial of the appellant and try to conclude the same as early as possible.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 14.07.2017 Transmission Date 14.07.2017