Pappu Singh @ Shiv Chandra Singh @ Shivchandra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59000 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Pappu Singh @ Shiv Chandra Singh @ Shivchandra Kumar S/o- Rajendra Singh Resident of Village- Walipur Ps- Pipariya Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Subodha Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP For the informant :
Mr. Pritish Kr. Lal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2025 Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, learned counsel representing the informant as also Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with S. Tr. No. 171 of 2022, arising out of Pipariya P.S. Case No. 53 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 23.05.2021 by the informant, Niranjan Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier while rejecting the prayer for bail on 29.08.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 35191 of 2023, a direction was given to the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude within a period of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59000 of 2024(3) dt.21-01-2025 2/3 nine months. However, despite the passage of more than a year, the trial is still on. In that background the report was called for in which it has been informed that one witness has been examined out of eight charge-sheet witnesses.
4. This Court fails to understand that when there is specific direction to conclude the trial within a particular period, failure to do so, the reason must be there in the report and it cannot be sent in a routine manner that one out of eight chargesheet witnesses has been examined.
5. The Incharge, learned Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Lakhisarai should take note of the fact and henceforth must go through the order before submitting the report.
6. Mr. P.K. Lal, learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, has taken this Court to the deposition of PW-1 to show that he has fully supported the prosecution story and the way the lady was killed and her mortal remains were consigned to the flames by none else but by this petitioner because he had infatuation for an another lady. The deceased was pregnant at the time of occurrence.
7. Considering the allegation that has come coupled with the deposition that has been made, this Court is not inclined to extend relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59000 of 2024(3) dt.21-01-2025 3/3 petition for bail stands rejected.
8. Learned Trial Court is directed to take immediate steps and conclude the trial at an earliest preferably within six months as the petitioner being in custody is also entitled to speedy trial.
(Rajiv Roy, J) perwez U T