Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3629/2018rejected

Jitu Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2018-01-24Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3629 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -32 Year- 2016 Thana -RANIYATALAB District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Jitu Sao Son of Ram Vinay Sao Resident of village- Patut, P.S.- Ram Talab, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail which was earlier rejected vide order dated 06.04.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7420 of 2017, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 01.04.2016. The petitioner is not named in the first information report and only on the basis of confessional statement, he is suffering in custody, whereas, other co-accused Anil Mahto and Bikash Kumar Mochi have already been allowed bail by different Benches of this Court and as such the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that during investigation name of the petitioner has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3629 of 2018 (2) dt.24-01-2018 2/2 transpired on the basis of call details of mobile phone and further the petitioner has confessed his guilt.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected in connection with Special POCSO Trial No. 42 of 2016 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No 32 of 2016 pending in the court of learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patna.

However, the learned trial court is again directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) khushbu/- U T