Manshi Rai @ Manish Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60015 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2014 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran ====================================================== Manshi Rai @ Manish Rai, S/o Sadhu Rai, R/o Village- Madhubani, P.S.- Amnour, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No. 224 of 2015 arising out of Amnour P.S. Case No. 164 of 2014, registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 16(1)a/18 of the Unlawful Activities Act, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Saran at Chapra.

Admittedly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was refused twice on merit lastly on 27.07.2016 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58163 of 2015 by this Court. A report, as called for, has been received to the Court of Addl. Session Judge-II, Saran, Chapra through letter No. 38, dated 28.02.2018,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60015 of 2017(5) dt.28-03-2018 2/2 which indicates that out of 04 public witness, 03 witnesses have been examined and summon through S.P. and Civil Surgeon has been issued for evidence of I.O and Doctor and NBW is issued against the rest public witnesses and he expected that if the parties co-operate the trial may be concluded within three months.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merit, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected. However, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Saran, Chapra is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

Let the copy of this order be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Saran Chapra for needful.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T