Dr. Parasnath Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10426 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2010 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Dr. Parasnath Prasad S/o Sri Chhathu Lal Prasad, R/o Mirganj, P.S.- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj, At present residing at 301, Quality Complex, North Mandiri, P.S.- Budha Colony, Patna, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna and Ors 2.

The Principal Secretary, Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Vigilance Department Government of Bihar, Pat 4.

Ajay Ranjan S/o Shri Lakshmi Sah, R/o Village- Navtolia, Ward No. 1, P.O.- Madhepura.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dr. Parasnath Prasad (in person) For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP For the Vigilance : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Bhushan, Adv.

Mr. Archana Palkar Khopde, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. P.P.

Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-12-2023

1. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned Senior counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau Mr. Anjani Kumar ably assisted by the learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance Mr. Arvind Kumar and Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi.

2. The case was argued vehemently from both the sides but the petitioner after some argument submitted that since the charges have been framed and trial has commenced, as such he is not pressing the quashing application and would be satisfied in the event if a direction is given to the learned trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10426 of 2018(6) dt.21-12-2023 2/2 court to conclude the case within a time frame as already more than 13 years have passed after institution of the F.I.R. and nearly more than 5 years have elapsed after framing of charge.

3. The submission of the petitioner appears to be reasonable and the same is not being disputed by the learned senior counsel Mr. Anjani Kumar.

4. Considering the submission made by the petitioner, the quashing application is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court to ensure that the trial is concluded within a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

5. The learned senior counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau assures the Court that from the side of the Vigilance, all efforts would be made to ensure that the witnesses appear in the trial in time and whenever required by the learned trial court.

6. The Court expects that both petitioner and the vigilance will co-operate in the trial.

7. The interim order of stay stands vacated.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T