Arvind Yadav @ Arvind Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71141 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2023 Thana- RUDRAPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Arvind Yadav @ Arvind Kumar Yadav Son of Ram Sundar Yadav Resident of Village - Barsam, P.S. - Rudrapur, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Bharti, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 601 of 2023 arising out of Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 354(B), 379, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC'). Subsequently, Section 302 of the IPC & Section 27 of the Arms Act were added. Earlier vide order dated 04-12-2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68766 of 2023, prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner was rejected. 3.

Earlier vide order dated 05-10-2024, a report was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71141 of 2024(3) dt.21-11-2024 2/2 called for from the lower court with regard to the present stage of the case, the number of witnesses examined and within what period the trial is likely to be concluded. In compliance thereto, a report dated 18-10-2024 has been received and it is reported that case is fixed for prosecution evidence and out of eleven witnesses, three witnesses have been examined so far, thus eight witnesses are yet to be examined. Further it is stated that trial is likely to be concluded within a period of nine months. 4.

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any fresh ground to revisit the matter which was earlier rejected on merit. Hence, keeping in view the report of the trial court, in which it is stated that trial is likely to be concluded within a period of nine months coupled with there being direct allegation of firing against this petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer is accordingly rejected. 5.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T