Navin Kumar Singh @ Pinku Kumar @ Pinku Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69262 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2019 Thana- MAKER District- Saran ====================================================== NAVIN KUMAR SINGH @ PINKU KUMAR @ PINKU KUMAR SINGH SON OF BIGAN PRASAD SINGH @ BIGAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PASHCHIM THAHARA, P.S. - MAKER, DISTRICT - SARAN AT CHAPRA .. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-12-2023 Heard the parties.

2. It transpires that present petitioner has filed a similar bail petition bearing Cr. Misc. No. 1605/2022 which was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2022 considering the serious allegation against the petitioner. As per allegation, the petitioner had caused fire-arm injury on the chest of the brother of the informant, due to which he died.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has taken fresh plea of length of custody submitting that the petitioner has been in jail since 01.07.2021 i.e., for about about two years four months and till date only two prosecution witnesses have been examined.

4. In view of nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

5. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within one year failing which the petitioner will have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69262 of 2023(4) dt.15-12-2023 2/2 liberty to approach renewing his prayer.

6. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner is causing delay in examination of prosecution witnesses by avoiding cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

7. In view of such submission, the trial court is directed to be cautious. If any party resorts any delaying tactics, the court should take suitable measure to curtail such type of delaying tactics. If the trial is not concluded due to delaying tactics on the part of the petitioner, he will not get benefit of non conclusion of the trial within stipulated time of one year. Hence, petitioner is directed to co-operate in the trial. (Jitendra Kumar, J) perwez U T