Puniya Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.61677 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -252 Year- 2013 Thana -RUPASPUR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Puniya Devi W/o Late Yadunandan Paswan Resident of Village - Habaspura, P.S. - Rupaspur, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Suman Kumari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner happens to be mother-in-law of the deceased and the deceased in her fardbeyan specifically stated that it was petitioner, who poured kerosene oil and lit fire on her body. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30277 of 2016 directing the trial court to conclude the trial of the petitioner within four months from the date of framing of charge.

The trial court vide his letter no. 15 dated 17.01.2018 has reported that charge against the petitioner was framed on 04.04.2017. Though prosecution has already examined four

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.61677 of 2017 (3) dt.24-01-2018 2/2 witnesses but trial of the petitioner is pending for recording the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses including I.O and Doctor and to ascertain the presence of remaining prosecution witnesses, the trial court has already issued non-bailable warrant. However, the letter of trial court further reveals that the trial court has assured to conclude the trial of the petitioner within two months.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected. However, the trial court must take efforts to conclude the trial of the petitioner within the period as fixed by the trial court itself. However, it is also made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period of two months, from the date of receipt/ production of copy of this order, petitioner may renew her prayer for bail before the trial court itself. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) N.K/- U