← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50591/2018dismissed

Ritlal @ Jitlal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2018-10-31Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50591 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -150 Year- 1996 Thana -SAKRA District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Ritlal @ Jitlal Prasad, S/o Late Ramdev Prasad Bhagat @ Late Ramdev Bhagat, resident of Village- Shitalpur P.S.- Chakiya, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 31-10-2018 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Tr. No.379/18for the offences under Sections 376, 147, 342, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is of committing rape upon the informant along with the other accused persons . The case is of the year, 1996. The petitioner is named in the FIR and it appears that the petitioner has surrendered on 13.5.2018 as such he was absconding in this case.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the girl was a consenting party and later on the girl did not appear in the trial, as such the co-accused had been acquitted from the charges levelled against him by the Fast Track Court No.2,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50591 of 2018 (4) dt.31-10-2018 2/2 which will appear from Annexure 2 of the petition. Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner was absconding for long years, as such he does not deserve bail. Having heard both sides and in view of conduct of the petitioner and that the trial was delayed, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, since it is submitted that the charge has been framed, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it expeditiously, as soon as possible.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T