← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32503/2016rejected

Sahbaz Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2016-11-10Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32503 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -420 Year- 2014 Thana -KRITYANAND NAGAR District- PURNIA ====================================================== Sahbaz Alam Son of Md. Afroj Alam resident of Village- Banbhag West Tola, Police -Station-K. Nagar, District Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 10-11-2016 Heard.

The petitioner being the husband of the victim/deceased, has prayed for bail in K. Nagar P.S. Case No. 420 of 2014 registered under section 302/34 IPC for having committed his murder by putting her on fire. The father of the deceased lodged the case.

From the statement made in the bail application and the order passed by the learned trial court in S.T. No. 72 of 2015, it appears that the trial has already been taken up inasmuch as 4-5 prosecution witlessness have been examined. It further appears that the witnesses so far examined have supported the prosecution case. The petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2014. It is submitted that the petitioner has to support 03 children born out of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32503 of 2016 (5) dt.10-11-2016 2/2 wedlock.

The status report was called for which has been received. On perusal thereof it appears that 04 witnesses at the trial have been examined. The learned trial court has further observed that if the parties cooperate, the trial would be concluded by June, 2017. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case appearing from the records, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 02 years by now, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself if the trial does not conclude by the end of June, 2017. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U R