Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82869/2023bail rejected

Anmol Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-22Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82869 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2020 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Anmol Kumar Thakur, Son Of Sri Sita Ram Thakur R/O Vill - Gohi, P.S. - Warisnagar, Distt. - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jai Prakash Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar- A.P.P.

Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh Mr. Sumit Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-12-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. Since petitioner is alleged to be the main assailant, as such, the Court is not inclined to release him on bail. No doubt, earlier when this petitioner had approached this Court, the Court had given him liberty by order dated 18.01.2023 to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court, in the event, if the trial is not concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order dated 18.01.2023.

3. The learned Additional P. P. submits that the said observation was given for the reason that it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that evidence is on verge of conclusion,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82869 of 2023(2) dt.22-12-2023 2/2 but then, the informant filed an application for recording evidence of four more witnesses, which was allowed by the Court, as such, the trial could not be concluded within the period as fixed by order dated 18.01.2023. The learned A.P.P. further submits that since petitioner is the main assailant and for the ends of justice, if some more witnesses are required to be examined that should not be made a ground for releasing the petitioner on bail.

4. Considering the submission made by the Additional P. P., the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

5. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

6. However, the learned trial Court is directed to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously and no unnecessary adjournment is given.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T