Patna High CourtCR. MISC./73419/2019rejected

Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-04Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73419 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2017 Thana- KURSAKANTA District- Araria ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Mandal S/o Indranand Mandal Resident of Village- Ghat Chikani, P.S.- Kursakanta, District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-09-2020 This matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing.

Forensic Science Laboratory report on the DNA test has been produced before the Court in sealed cover. After perusing the report the same is ordered to be sealed again. Let the sealed report be sent to the learned trial Judge for needful with intimation to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which has transmitted the report aforesaid, that the said report has been sent to the learned trial Judge.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offences punishable under Sections 376/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act in connection with Special (POCSO)

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73419 of 2019(9) dt.04-09-2020 2/2 Case No.21 of 2017, arising out of Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 7 of 2017.

Since prosecution evidence is already closed and the trial is at the verge of conclusion, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is facing trial for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3⁄4 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused.

However, the trial Judge is expected to conclude the trial within three months unless the defence proposes to lead defence evidence. In that situation the trial should be concluded within six months.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T