Suman Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69906 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2017 Thana- FALKA District- Katihar ====================================================== SUMAN YADAV Son of Late Yogendrja Yadav Resident of VillageRangakol, P.S.- Falka, District- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-11-2019 Petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2019, arising out of Falka P.S. Case No.319 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Firstly prayer for bail of petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.10.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. no. 58081 of 2018 with observation that " However, since the petitioner is in custody for 10 months, Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial".

Secondly, prayer for bail of petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.03.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10181 of 2019 with following observation "Having heard both sides and perused the record also, from which it appears that the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, in view of the facts

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69906 of 2019(2) dt.06-11-2019 2/2 and circumstances of the case as stated above, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner." Allegation against the petitioner is that he fired upon the brother of the informant causing injury to his abdomen which was dangerous to life.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prayer for bail was rejected with some observations and he is custody uptill now. Charge has been framed against the petitiner but there is no substantial progress in the case. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of bail on the ground that petitioner is an accused in five other cases and all of serious in nature.

Having heard both sides, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However since charge has been framed against the petitioner, learned court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months and if not concluded the trial within six months liberty shall be available to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) T.Kr./- U T