Raman Yadav @ Raman Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54236 of 2015 (3) dt.22-01-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54236 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2014 Thana -ARER District- MADHUBANI ======================================================
1. Raman Yadav @ Raman Kumar Yadav Son of Late Ram Bahadur Yadav Resident of Village - Jhaunghi, P.S. - Arer, District - Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Arer P.S. Case No. 83 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 24.06.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10594 of 2015, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 18.09.2014 and up-till-now no prosecution witness has been examined, in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded whereas other co-accused namely Chhotan Sahani has been allowed bail vide order dated 06.02.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5193 of 2015 and as such the petitioner also deserves
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54236 of 2015 (3) dt.22-01-2016 sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that name of the petitioner was taken by the deceased which is evident from the fardbeyan itself and as such oral dying declaration cannot be brushed aside so lightly. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of bail of the petitioner, his prayer of bail again stands rejected.
However, considering the period of detention of the petitioner, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within nine months. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T