Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17519/2017rejected

Rishu Kumar @ Vicky v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-19Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17519 of 2017 (3) dt.19-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17519 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2016 Thana -ARWAL District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Rishu Kumar @ Vicky Son of Krishna Singh @ Krishna Bahadur Singh, R/o Parauli, P.S. Basantpur, District - Siwan, At Present R/o Nandua Aasthan Chandan Kichari, P.S. Chandan Kichari, District - Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyamal Prakash For the Opposite Party/s Mr. Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19.07.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Trial court' report reveals that charge against the petitioner was framed on 31.5.2017 but up till now not a single prosecution witness has been examined by the prosecution but summons have been issued to procure the attendance of the witnesses. Since trial of the petitioner has already commenced and earlier his prayer for bail was rejected taking into consideration the material available on the case diary, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and, again, his prayer for bail in connection with Session trial no. 221/2017 arising out of Arwal P.S. Case no. 39/2016 pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge V, Jehanabad stands rejected.

However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17519 of 2017 (3) dt.19-07-2017 of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible preferably, within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

It is made clear that if trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period of six months on account of laches of the prosecution, petitioner may renew his payer for bail before the trial court itself.

shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J) U T