High Court rejected the petitioners repeated bail prayer under Section 439 CrPC despite incomplete trial. However, directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months to prevent further incarceration.
Bail prayer rejected; trial concluded within six months 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.16123 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -78 Year- 2011 Thana -NAUBATPUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Manoj Rai @ Punna Rai @ Punna @ Puna Rai S/o Ram Narayan Rai @ Raj Narayan Rai Resident of Village- Ghanshyampur, P.S.- Naubatpur, DistrictPatna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr.Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta,A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 20-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is an accused in Sessions Trial No.1469 of 2011 arising out of Naubatpur P.S. Case No.78 of 2011. Admittedly, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected twice by coordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr.Misc.No.3085/12 and Cr.Misc.No.6571/13 on 6.4.2012 and 23.7.2014 respectively.
The report called for from the court of Additional Sessions Judge 1st , Danapur by order dated 21.4.2016 has now since been received which shows that out of ten witnesses, six
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16123 of 2016 (3) dt.20-05-2016
2/2
witnesses have been examined and four witnesses including the I.O. and the doctor are yet to be examined and the trial would be concluded within a period of four months.
Under the facts and circumstance, I am not inclined to renew the prayer of bail of the petitioner and accordingly, rejected.
However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial is not concluded within said period the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
AnilKrSinha/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for bail should be renewed given the status of the trial.
Whether the delay in trial conclusion warrants the renewal of bail prayer.
Manoj Rai @ Punna Rai
The State of Bihar
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
