Dismissed

Amresh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC22 Jun 2016CR. MISC./21235/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's second bail prayer in a criminal case under Section 304-B/34 IPC. The court ruled that the trial was expected to conclude within six months of the framing of charges, which did not exceed the one-year period mandated for trial conclusion in the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of bail is rejected; petitioner allowed liberty to renew prayer after one-year period expires.

Amresh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21235 of 2016

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -71 Year- 2014 Thana -JANDAHA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR)

¶4

====================================================== Amresh Kumar Singh son of Sri Rajeshwar Singh resident of VillageJagdishpur, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Shukla, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 22-06-2016 Heard the parties. The petitioner seeks bail in a criminal prosecution registered under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court by order dated 04.03.2015 passed in Cr.Misc.No. 1333 of 2015 (Annexure-1) with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial of the petitioner at an early date preferably within a period of one year from the date of framing of charge and liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail, if his trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of time.

¶6

By order dated 18.05.2016 a report was called for from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur about the status of the trial of the petitioner. Now the report dated 24.05.2016 has been submitted by the learned trial court, from perusal of which it appears that charges against the petitioner were framed on 04.03.2016, but no witness has been examined till date. However, it is further reported that the trial of the petitioner is likely to be disposed of within a period of six months.

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21235 of 2016 (3) dt.22-06-2016

¶8

2/2

¶9

In above view of the matter, since the period of one year from the date of framing of charge fixed by order dated 04.03.2016 has not expired, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer in connection with Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2016 arising out of Jandaha P.S.Case No. 71 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Vaishali at Hajipur is rejected once again.

¶10

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail once the period of one year from the date of framing of charge, fixed by order dated 04.03.2016, is completed and trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period.

¶11

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶12

Tahir/-

¶13

U T

Amresh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amresh Kumar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Gajadhar Prasad Ramuka Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Luchhai Chhaupal and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Harihar Mahto and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Rasendra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.