On the third attempt, the High Court rejected the petitioner's bail plea in a Section 302 IPC murder case where he was the main assailant, correcting the lower court's view that seven of nine witnesses had been examined.
Prayer for bail is rejected.
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.17167 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -195 Year- 2002 Thana -MEERGANJ District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Rama Manjhi, son of Baijnath Manjhi, resident of village – Badarjimi, P.S. Mirganj, Distt. Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sandesh Roy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. C.Jawahar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3. 22-06-2016 Heard Sri Ram Sandesh Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Choudhary Jawahar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
This is the 3rd attempt for grant of bail on behalf of petitioner. Earlier twice, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected, in view of the fact that in a case registered under Section 302 of the I.P.C., the petitioner was the main assailant. On last occasion, while rejecting prayer for bail, the Court had noticed report received from the court below wherein it was indicated that out of nine witnesses, seven witnesses had already been examined.
In this case, vide order dated 04-05-2016, a report was again called for from the court below regarding stage of the case, which has been received and kept at flag ‘B’. The report suggests
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17167 of 2016 (3) dt.22-06-2016
2/2
that from the last date, there is no progress in the case. Meaning thereby that out of nine witnesses, till date only seven witnesses have been examined. However, in the present report, the learned Trial Judge has observed that prosecution has already been directed to produce witnesses positively, failing which, the prosecution evidence will be closed.
In view of the fact that petitioner is the main assailant in a case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
again I do not find any ground to review my earlier order.
The prayer for bail again stands rejected.
The Court expects that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in view of its report dated 10-05-2016, may take positive step so that trial may come to its logical end without any further delay.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Anay
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who is the main assailant in a Section 302 IPC case after two earlier rejections.
Whether the delay in trial proceedings warrants granting bail under the circumstances.
Rama Manjhi
The State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
