Tarun Kewat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21112 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2015 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Tarun Kewat, Son of Yadu Kewat, resident of Village- Ram Hari Pind, P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha, advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Asharaf Ansari (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail which was earlier twice rejected vide order dated 17.09.2016 and 08.03.2017 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 31601 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. No. 11294 of 2017 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 18.12.2015, other coaccused have been allowed bail, he has not been put up T.I.P, the trial has not been competed in spite of direction given by this Court and further as per order passed by order dated 18.10.2017 after perusal of the letter of learned Trial Judge and the report of learned trial Judge it reveals that up till now only five prosecution witnesses have been examined out of nine witnesses

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21112 of 2018(3) dt.02-05-2018 2/2 and there is no progress in the trial and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that recovery of looted mobile and cash from the possession of the petitioner and further he has sold looted golden ring in the shop of Gayatri Jewelers . In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of the bail, again prayer of the bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

However, considering the period of detention, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible preferably within two months from date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T