Rajeev Kumar @ Rahul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9202 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2016 Thana -PANDARAK District- PATNA ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar @ Rahul, Son of Chandra Shekhar Prasad, resident of village - Gopkita, Police Station - Pandarak, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S. K., Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahtash Ali Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-02-2017 This is an application for grant of bail for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in course of investigation it has come that petitioner used to do fertilizer business and afterward, he left the business. As such, dispute started between the petitioner and his wife, who later on committed suicide having poison. Now the case has been committed to the court of sessions and charge has been framed under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code. As such, the materials, which have come during the course of investigation, are not supporting the case of prosecution

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9202 of 2017 (2) dt.28-02-2017 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that charge has already been framed and the case is committed to the court of sessions, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, the same is rejected.

However, learned court below, i.e., A.D.J.-IInd, Barh, is directed to expedite the trial of the case in connection with S.T. no. 696 of 2016 (arising out of Pandarak P.S. Case no. 17 of 2016) and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court below and if prayer is renewed, court below will pass order after perusing the case diary and other materials available before the court. It is needless to say that petitioner must cooperate in concluding his trial. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sudip/- U T