Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76082/2019dismissed

Chandra Prakash Mahto @ Chandra Mohan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-26Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76082 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2015 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== CHANDRA PRAKASH MAHTO @ CHANDRA MOHAN MAHTO, aged about 25 years, Male, Son of Yogendra Mahto @ Yogendra Singh Resident of Village - Khetapur, P.S.- Sarai Rajan, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 26-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Session Trial No. 483/2017 arising out of Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 184/2015 registered under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Assistant Session Judge, Rosera,, Samastipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. His name has been transpired from the confessional statement of the coaccused. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that four prosecution witnesses in this case have already been examined in course of trial. As many as 13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76082 of 2019(2) dt.26-11-2019 2/2 cases is on the head of this petitioner of similar nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case wherein four prosecution witnesses in this case have already been examined in course of trial and it is found that petitioner has got as many as 13 cases of similar nature, this court is of the opinion that releasing the petitioner at this stage may not only delay the conclusion of trial but may also result in threatening of witnesses, this court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Prayer of regular bail of the petitioner is refused. Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from today.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T