Ashish Ranjan Sinha @ Tannu Jee @ Tunnu Jee @ Ashish Ranjan Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4618 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2016 Thana- PIRO District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Ashish Ranjan Sinha @ Tannu Jee @ Tunnu Jee @ Ashish Ranjan Singh S/o Late Rajesh Kumar Sinha, R/o Village- Narayanpur (Hasan Bazar), P.S.- Piro, District- Bhojpur at Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-02-2018 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Piro (Hasan Bazar) P.S. Case No. 199 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner had earlier moved this Court twice for grant of bail in Cr. Misc. Nos. 47662 of 2016 29313 of 2017, which were rejected vide orders dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure-1) and 19.07.2017 (Annexure-1/A). By the order dated 19.07.2017, the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months.
Vide order dated 31.01.2018 a report was called for from the Court below regarding the stage of the trial, which has been received and is kept at Flag A. Perusal of the same shows that on account of filing the application for transfer of the case to another Court, the matter remained pending for about three months, and as such, the trial could not be concluded within the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4618 of 2018(3) dt.28-02-2018 2/2 six months as directed by this Court, and further time of six months has been prayed for concluding the trial. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in this case charge has already been framed on 23.02.2017 and out of the eleven charge sheet witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined till today. Petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2017.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the fact that petitioner's prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court on two occasions and no new ground has been brought before this Court, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. It is accordingly rejected.
However, considering the fact that the trial of the case remained pending for about three months due to filing of the application for transfer of the case by this petitioner, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of this case on day to day basis and conclude it expeditiously within a period of three months from today.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T