Disposed

Pankaj Jha v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC9 Oct 2013CR. MISC./16960/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused bail to a husband facing dowry death charges due to severe medical evidence against him, but ordered the trial court to conclude the trial within one year, granting right to renew bail if not done.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial court to conclude trial within one year; liberty to seek bail renewal from trial court if trial not completed; liberty to move this Court thereafter.

Pankaj Jha Vs The State Of Bihar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16960 of 2013
======================================================
1. Pankaj Jha S/O Late Jeebaggch Jha Resident Of Village- Nipaniya, Police
Station- Phulwaria, District- Begusarai
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Nutan Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP.
For the Informant : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER

¶2

4 09-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner faces prosecution for the offence punishable under Section304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and is the husband of the deceased, this Court taking into account the statement of the Doctor at paragraph no. 35, is not at all inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶3

The petitioner, however, is in custody since, 11.09.2012 i.e for a period of over one year and therefore, this Court would direct the trial Court to expedite the trial of the petitioner specially when Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the informant has assured that the witnesses on behalf of prosecution so far they are under control of the

¶4

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16960 of 2013 (4) dt.09-10-2013

¶5

¶6

informant shall be produced without any delay.

¶7

Considering the aforesaid undertaking of the learned counsel for the informant, this Court would direct the trial Court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner may be expedited and concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order.

¶8

Happen it be so, that the trial of the petitioner is not concluded in the aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner will have the liberty to move initially the trial court renewing his prayer for bail which then will have to record reasons for not concluding the trial within the aforementioned time frame as fixed in this order. The petitioner will thereafter have also the liberty to move this Court for renewing his prayer for bail.

¶9

Ranjan/-

¶10

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

Pankaj Jha v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Jha v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Khalil Vs The State Of Bihar

Sunil Sah @ Sunil Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Dipak Dayal Vs The State Of Bihar

Guddu Alam Vs The State Of Bihar

Sanjay Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar