Bidya @ Bidya Nand Yadav @ Bidya Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29729 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -114 Year- 1999 Thana -SIMRI BAKHTIARPUR District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Bidya @ Bidya Nand Yadav @ Bidya Yadav, Son of Sigheshwar Yadav resident of Village- Galfariya, P.S. Bakhtiyarur, District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Sheela Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2013 arising out of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 114 of 1999 registered under sections 302, 307, 324/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ist, Saharsa.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that earlier prayer of the petitioner was rejected vide Cr. Misc. No. 27538 of 2013 on 21.01.2014 by this Court. It is also submitted that all the witnesses have been examined, except Doctor and I.O. and petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2013. Admittedly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29729 of 2015 (3) dt.19-08-2015 2/2 earlier rejected on merit taking into consideration the nature of allegation. The report, as called for from the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharsa vide Memo No. 65 dated 03.08.2015, reveals that the case is at the stage of evidence and in spite of necessary step taken, the Doctor and I.O. have not been examined as yet.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no fresh ground to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within a period of four months and take all effective steps for examination of the aforesaid witnesses. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U T