The Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's bail application. The court observed that prosecution witnesses remain pending for examination and a non-bailable warrant has been issued. A direction was issued to expedite the trial within five months.
Bail prayer rejected; direction to expedite trial within five months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5619 of 2013 (3) dt.08-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5619 of 2013
====================================================== 1. Dinesh Manjhi Son Of Srikrit Manjhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 3 08-05-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was twice rejected by this Court considering the allegation levelled against him.
The learned trial court has reported that out of 8 prosecution witnesses up till now five prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the case is pending for examination of one witness, namely, Dharmendra Kumar as well as Investigating Officer and doctor. The trial court has also reported that to procure the attendance of prosecution witness, Dharmendra Kumar, non bailable warrant of arrest has already been issued and so far as Investigating Officer and doctor are concerned, summons have already been issued against them.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5619 of 2013 (3) dt.08-05-2013
well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2011 arising out of Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 74 of 2010 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna is again rejected.
However, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible. Furthermore, a copy of this order be sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna with direction to him to ensure the presence of remaining prosecution witnesses of above stated Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2011 arising out of Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 74 of 2010 before the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna. It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within five months from the date of receipt of this order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial court itself.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
SHAHZAD/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for bail of the petitioner should be allowed despite pending prosecution witnesses and non-bailable warrant issued.,
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial within a specified timeframe.
Dinesh Manjhi
State Of Bihar
Hemant Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
