Devendra Rai @ Devendera Kumar @ Darendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83686 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2018 Thana- RIVILGANJ District- Saran ====================================================== DEVENDRA RAI @ DEVENDERA KUMAR @ DARENDRA KUMAR Son of Late Dharmnath Prasad Yadav @ Late Dharmnath Prasad Rai Resident of Village- jalalpur, P.S.- Revilganj, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 17-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP through video conferencing.

Seen the report submitted by the learned lower court wherefrom it is evident that one of the accused, Prakash Rai is absconding since 17.05.2019, against whom warrant of arrest bailable as well as processes under Section 82 & 83 have already been issued. Furthermore, it is also evident that save and except doctor and I.O. all the material witnesses have already been examined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner happens to be under custody since 14.03.2018. Also submitted that other co-accused, Prakash Rai (absconder) has also been granted bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 34876/2018 while Vijay Rai has been granted bail under Cr. Misc. No. 74054/2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83686 of 2019(5) dt.17-06-2020 2/2 that Prakash Rai has been kidnapped by the prosecution party itself and for that Complaint Case No. 1578/2019 was filed by his father, Raju Rai and on the basis thereof, Ravilganj PS Case No. 279/2019 has been registered. Also submitted that in the background of prevailing extra-ordinary situation due to COVID-19, the physical court could not be plausible and so, the cumulative effect did justify the release of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned APP opposed the same. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is successively found rejected at earlier occasions identifying his status during course of commission of the crime.

In the background of abscondance of Prakash Rai, processes have already been issued, the learned lower court is directed to bifurcate the trial or proceed in accordance with Section 299 of the CrPC and further, will procure presence of doctor and I.O. and for that Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra is directed to have their presence at the earliest whenever required by the court and in terms thereof, instant petition for regular bail is, hereby, rejected.