Bhootnath Singh @ Bhodu Singh @ Bhodu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9770 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2014 Thana -SIKRAUL District- BUXAR ====================================================== Bhootnath Singh @ Bhodu Singh @ Bhodu, Son of Ghyanshyam Singh, Residents of Village- Bhadar, Police Station- Sikraul, District Buxar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parijat Saurav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this court taking note of this fact that he is said to have given several dagger blows causing death of the deceased but this bail petition has been filed on the ground of period of detention of the petitioner, who is in jail custody since 15.07.2014. The learned trial court has reported that petitioner and one co-accused were facing trial before the trial court and on 20.01.2016, a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9770 of 2017 (3) dt.03-05-2017 2/2 to summon three co-accused who were subsequently summoned and thereafter, charges were framed against them and the date is fixed for recording the prosecution evidence. The aforesaid fact goes to show that de novo trial has been commenced and the trial court has sought one year time to dispose of Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2015 arising out of Sikraul P.S. Case No. 64 of 2014.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail and hence, his prayer for bail in connection with above stated case stands rejected.

However, it is made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded due to non cooperation of the prosecution within the above stated period of one year or after examination of entire prosecution witnesses, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court itself. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U T