Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76517/2023bail rejected

Virendra Giri @ Virendra Nath v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-05Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76517 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2017 Thana- SIWAIPATTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== VIRENDRA GIRI @ VIRENDRA NATH Son of Late Janak Giri Resident of Village - Chakia Dharampur, P.S.- Siwaipatti, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-01-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 19 of 2017 for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code ans subsequently added sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 10.03.2017 by the informant, Rajmati Devi.

3. As per the FIR, it is alleged that eight years old daughter of the informant was playing behind her home and she went missing. Despite search, they could not find the child. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged and subsequently the name of the petitioner cropped up during the course of investigation but he chose to evade arrest. The FIR was lodged in the year 2017 and it was only in the month of March, 2022 that the petitioner chose to walk into the judicial custody.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76517 of 2023(4) dt.05-01-2024 2/2

4. Earlier the case of the petitioner was heard and rejected on 08.09.2022 in Cr. Misc. No. 28474 of 2022.

5. Again, a fresh application has been preferred whereafter a report was called for, which has since been received vide letter no. 398 dated 14.12.2023 according to which the Trial Court has detailed out the reason for nonconclusion of trial for the period of one year and further has assured that the same will be concluded within a period of three months.

6. Taking into account the allegation that has come against the petitioner, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

7. The Trial Court is directed to abide by its assurance and conclude the trial within a period of three months from today.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U T