Patna High CourtCR. MISC./56450/2018bail rejected

Abhiram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2018-09-26Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56450 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -70 Year- 2011 Thana -LAUKAHI District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Abhiram Yadav, S/o Sri Kaleshwar Yadav, Resident of VillageTengraha, P.S.-Bheja, District-Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 26-09-2018 Heard the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in S.Tr.No.303 of 2017 arising out of Laukahi P.S. Case No.70 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 302/34/120(B) of I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been refused twice lastly on 21.06.2017 vide Cr.Misc.No.6836 of 2017 with direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Jhanjharpur, to commit the case of the petitioner in accordance with law to the court of Session without further delay and the Sessions Judge will take steps so that trial of the petitioner may be concluded within one year. The case while committing to the court of Sessions was numbered as S.Tr.No.303/17 but charge has been framed on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56450 of 2018 (3) dt.26-09-2018 2/2 18.07.2018.

The report regarding stage of the trial called earlier has been received through Letter No.120 dated 17.09.2018 which shows that uptill now not a single witness has been examined while 9 witnesses have been sited in the charge sheet and expected time in conclusion of the trial would be one year. Under such circumstances, since prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected twice, I find no reason to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. The prayer for bail is again rejected.

However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Madhubani, is directed to conclude the trail of the petitioner within 8 months by taking all effective steps to secure attendance of the witnesses and, if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

This application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) AnilKrSinha/- U