Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16083/2015rejected

Manoj Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2015-05-20Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16083 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -59 Year- 2006 Thana -PAKRIDAYAL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. MANOJ MANJHI S/O RAM LAL MANJHI, R/o Village- Sirha Dhagard Toli, P.S- Pakadidayal, District- East Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Gautam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.Dayal(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The trial court has reported that uptill now, only 5 prosecution witnesses could be examined and the trial of the petitioner is still pending.

Taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submission of the parties, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2012 arising out of Pakridayal P.S. Case No. 59 of 2006 pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Champaran, Motihari stands rejected.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16083 of 2015 (3) dt.20-05-2015 2/2 However, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably, within a period of 8 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order.

Let copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari with direction to him to ensure the presence of remaining prosecution witnesses of Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2012 before the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Champaran, Motihari within three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the matter shall be viewed seriously.

However, it is made clear that if, the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above-said period of 8 months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) A.K.V./- U T