Gobind Ray @ Gobinda Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82649 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2021 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Gobind Ray @ Gobinda Ray Son of Kesho Ray Resident of VillageKharauna Police Station- Tarari District -Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Informant :

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

Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-07-2025 This is the second regular bail application preferred by the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation upon the petitioner is that he had killed his wife by setting her on fire and on account of burn injuries she succumbed to the injuries.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely because he happens to be the husband of the deceased and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82649 of 2024(8) dt.10-07-2025 2/2 allegations levelled against the petitioner is all false and concocted. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2022.

6. The learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that the trial is almost on the verge of closure and from perusal of the status report it appears that only one witness remains to be examined.

7. Considering the aforesaid submission and taking into account that the trial is at the fag end, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence the prayer is rejected.

8. From perusal of the report, it appears that only one prosecution witness remains to be examined and as such, it is expected that the trial would be concluded within three months from today. It goes without saying that without unnecessary delay the trial Court should proceed on day to day basis and complete the trial without unnecessary adjournment to either side.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Prakash/- U