Rajeev Rai @ Rajeev Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65489 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2018 Thana- TISIAUTA District- Vaishali ====================================================== RAJEEV RAI @ RAJEEV KUMAR RAY Son of Mr. Damodar Ray Resident of Village - Husenipur, P.S. - Tisiauta, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Udbhav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 22-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in a case registered under sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected earlier vide order dated 27.1.2021 (Annexure-1) passed in Cr. Misc. no. 28134 of 2020 giving liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within nine months. It is submitted that there is no progress in the trial in the learned trial Court and no chance of the same concluding in the near future. The petitioner is in custody since 14.2.2020 and thus he be enlarged on bail. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65489 of 2021(3) dt.22-04-2022 2/2 The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is direct allegation against him in the FIR.

A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 3.1.2022 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IX, Vaishali at Hajipur, cognizance was taken in the case on 18.5.2020 and the case is pending in the Court for commitment.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U