Bharat Kumar Mishra @ Bharat Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19195 of 2018 (3) dt.16-05-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19195 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2013 Thana -ITADHI District- BUXAR ====================================================== Bharat Kumar Mishra @ Bharat Mishra S/o Narendra Mishra, Resident of Village-Chausa Bazar, P.S.-Buxar (M), District-Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Reena Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2017 in connection with S. Tr. No. 20 of 2018 arising out of Itarhi P.S. Case No. 138 of 2013 for the offence registered under Sections 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Petitioner renew his prayer for bail in view of he liberty granted earlier vide order dated 19.02.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4500 of 2018.

It is submitted that now charge has been framed and therefore, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail. Learned counsel for the informant, however, submits

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19195 of 2018 (3) dt.16-05-2018 that the petitioner has been absconding from the year 2014 to 2017 when his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. It is further submitted that after three years, he has been taken into custody. It is under such circumstances that it is prayed that the release of the petitioner would delay the trial and obstruct the process of the court to reach its logical conclusion.

After perusal of the order, it appears that there was ample material in the case diary on the last occasion. However, charge has been framed but keeping the past conduct of the petitioner into consideration, this court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial so as to conclude the same within a period of nine months. (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T