In a bail application arising from PS Case No. 366 of 2011, the Patna High Court, dismissing the prayer, directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial without unnecessary adjournments and ensured witness attendance.
Bail was rejected; trial directed to be expedited; witnesses appearance directed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39529 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -366 Year- 2011 Thana -KANTI THARMAL POWER DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== 1. Raghunath Pandey, S/O Ramphal Pandey, 2. Sudhir Pandey, S/O Raghunath Pandey, 3. Dhiraj Pandey, S/O Raghunath Pandey, all resident of village Salona Bheriyahi, P.S. Kanti, District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER
8/ 20-08-2014 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the
State.
Prayer of the Petitioners for bail was earlier refused by this Court by order dated 19.02.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No.4574 of 2013.
Considering that now the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions and posted for expeditious disposal, I am not inclined to review the earlier order refusing bail to the Petitioners in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No.366 of 2011.
Prayer for bail is once again rejected.
The Trial Court (3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur) is directed to expedite the trial in Sessions Trial No.551 of 2014 without granting unnecessary adjournment to any party for which reason the Trial Court will send a list of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39529 of 2013 (8) dt.20-08-2014
2/2
witnesses fixing specific dates for their examination along with a copy of this order to the concerned Superintendent of Police, who is directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses on the date
fixed so that there is no further delay in the trial.
Counsel for the Informant, who is present in the Court, undertakes to ensure attendance of the witnesses on the date fixed.
(Anjana Prakash, J)
JA/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail prayer should be allowed despite the previous refusal?
Raghunath Pandey, Sudhir Pandey, Dhiraj Pandey
The State of Bihar
Anjana Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
