Pankaj Yadav @ Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Ray @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73645 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2020 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Pankaj Yadav @ Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Ray @ Guddu Son of Late Narsingh Yadav Resident of Village Daulatpur, P.S. Ara Muffasil, District Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the Informant :

Ms. Malti Kumari, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 15-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By order dated 04.01.2023, a report with regard to present status of the case and the time likely to be taken in conclusion of trial in connection with Ara (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.177 of 2020 was called for from the learned court below. Perused the report at Flag 'R'.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Bhojpur at Ara has reported that altogether eleven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution have been examined. Only the Investigating Officer and the Doctor are yet to be examined on behalf of the prosecution. It is further reported that six months' time is likely to be taken in conclusion of the trial.

Considering the report sent by the learned trial court, I

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73645 of 2022(3) dt.15-02-2023 2/2 am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected. If the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T