Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48388/2018dismissed

Kamlesh Yadav @ Takal v. The State Of Bihar

2018-10-10Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48388 of 2018 (3) dt.10-10-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48388 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -146 Year- 2014 Thana -KOCH District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Kamlesh Yadav @ Takal, Son of Jhakhuri Yadav, resident of VillageChabura Khaira, P.S.- Anti, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sir Pramod Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Earlier the application of the petitioner for grant of bail has been dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16057 of 2017 in connection with Koch P.S. Case No. 146/14, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

Allegation against the petitioner and others is of firing on the husband of the informant causing his death. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that uptil now no substantive progress has been made in trial and he has been in judicial custody since 24.02.2015.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48388 of 2018 (3) dt.10-10-2018 Earlier a report has been called for with regard to stage of trial, which has since been received, from which, it appears that still ten witnesses have to be examined. Having heard both sides, considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected. However, since the petitioner has been in custody for more than three years, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it as expeditiously as possible even by conducting the trial on day to day basis.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T