Ramu Majhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60752 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2021 Thana- BUXAR INDUSTRIAL District- Buxar ====================================================== Ramu Majhi, Son of Nanhak Majhi, R/O Vill.- Ahirauli, P.S.- Buxar (Ind.), Dist.- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate Mr. Tushar Vaibhav, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The earlier application for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 9.3.2022 (Annexure-1) passed in Cr. Misc. no. 49532 of 2021.

As per the prosecution case, the informant received information on telephone about the disappearance of his son who was living at his maternal uncle's place and subsequently his dead body being found. He states that it appears that unknown accused persons have killed him.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner vide order dated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60752 of 2022(3) dt.18-01-2023 2/2 9.3.2022 on merits, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within 6 months of communication of this order for no fault of the petitioner. It has been more than 10 months since passing of the said order and the trial has still not concluded for no fault of the petitioner.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State. Learned A.P.P for the State submits that besides the submissions on merits, for the last several days in the trial, the case is proceeding for examination of the defense witnesses. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation, the prayer for bail of the petitioner having been rejected on merits on earlier occasion, report received from the learned trial court according to which all the eight prosecution witnesses have been examined, statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused has been recorded and the case is running at the stage of defense evidence, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T