Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29337/2017rejected

Binod Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-26Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29337 of 2017 (2) dt.26-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29337 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -112 Year- 2014 Thana -BIHARIGANJ District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Binod Mahto Son of Suraj Mahto Resident of Village - Biraili Bazar, Police Station - Singheshwar, District - Madhepura..... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Murlidhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 28.04.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11463 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 25.11.2014 and the trial has not been concluded, up-till now only two prosecution witnesses have been examined which is evident from the impugned order dated 20.05.2017 though there was direction to conclude the trial within nine months.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner is the husband and independent witnesses have supported the allegation that the petitioner has administered Salphas tablet to his wife and made the dead body traceless. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29337 of 2017 (2) dt.26-07-2017 ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected in Sessions Trial No. 69 of 2016 pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura.

However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

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