Dhananjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22659 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -481 Year- 2015 Thana -JAHANABAD District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Dhananjay Singh, son of Ashok Singh, resident of Village - Sewnan, P.S. Jehanabad (Korana OP), District - Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

28-06-2017 Heard Sri Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Prasad Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

This is the second attempt for grant of bail. Earlier, the prayer of bail of petitioner was rejected on 16-11-2016, vide Cr. Misc. No. 45549 of 2016. The petitioner is in custody in Jehanabad (Karona O.P.) P.S. Case No. 481 of 2015, initially registered for offence under Sections 342, 326, 307, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently, after the death of the informant, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. Considering the nature of accusation as well as the fact that victim/informant, who subsequently died, had alleged against the petitioner, the prayer for bail was rejected.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22659 of 2017 (4) dt.28-06-2017 2/2 Earlier, by order dated 10-05-2017, a report was called for from the court below, which has been received and kept at flag 'A'. The report suggests that in the case, charges were framed on 20-11-2016 and thereafter, summon and non-bailable warrant of arrest has also been issued against the witnesses. However, till the date of report, prosecution had not examined even a single witness.

Considering the nature of accusation, the prayer for bail again stands rejected for the time being with an observation that if no progress in the trial is achieved within a reasonable time, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail. Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T