Rambhu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53631 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -52 Year- 2006 Thana -LAUKARIA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Rambhu Yadav, Son of Suryabali Yadav, resident of village - Kailash Nagar, P.S. Bagaha, District - West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5.

29-03-2017 Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned counsel assisted by Sri Anand Kishore Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dashrath Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

This is the 2nd attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 425 of 2016, arising out of Laukariya P.S. Case No. 52 of 2006 registered for the offence under Sections 364 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier, by order dated 15-12-2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 53004 of 2015, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit as well as the fact that though case was registered in the year 2006 and he surrendered in another case in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53631 of 2016 (5) dt.29-03-2017 2/3 2013, he was remanded in the present case in 2014. The another reason for rejection of bail was that in paragraph - 3 of the bail petition, fact was disclosed that the petitioner was accused in nine cases of serious offences.

In the present case, by order dated 18-01-2017, a report was called for from the court below regarding stage of the case. In compliance of the order of this Court, a report dated 28-01-2017 of the trial court, which was forwarded vide letter dated 01-03-2017, has been brought on record and kept as Flag 'Y'. The report indicates that the case was committed on 19-11-2016, charges were filed and out of seven chargesheeted witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined. Meaning thereby that trial is continuing.

In view of the fact that trial is going on as well as the fact that on merit, the prayer for bail has already been rejected, there is no reason to recall my earlier order. The prayer for bail again stands rejected.

However, keeping in view of the fact that petitioner is in custody, in the present case, since 2014 and trial is already continuing, while rejecting the prayer for bail, it is desirable to observe that learned court below as well as prosecution may take all steps so that the case may come to its logical end without

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53631 of 2016 (5) dt.29-03-2017 3/3 unnecessary delay. If possible, learned trial court is required to take up the matter at least once in a week.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T