The High Court rejected the petitioner's second application for bail under Section 304 IPC Part-II despite his custodial period exceeding two years. While refusing bail, the Court directed the lower court to conclude the trial within six months.
Direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within six 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21668 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -76 Year- 2014 Thana -THAKRAHA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Mangal Musahar @ Mangal Mushar S/o Inar Musahar resident of VillageJamuniya, P.S.- Thakuraha (Bhitaha), District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 29-06-2016 Earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 8.10.2015 in Cr. Misc. no. 38651 of 2015. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. A report regarding stage of the case was called for from the trial court. From perusal of the same it is evident that prosecution witnesses have already been examined and it has been stated by the trial court, that within a period of six months the trial will be concluded.
On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that petitioner is in custody since 19.5.2014, i.e., for approximately more than two years and he has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of evidence against the petitioner. It is at best a case under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21668 of 2016 (3) dt.29-06-2016
2/2
On behalf of the State it is submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the trial is already in progress. Hence, it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, same is rejected.
Any how, learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran, is further granted six months time to conclude the trial from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha, who shall ensure that the prosecution witnesses are present in the court on the date fixed by the trial court.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
sudip/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a non-bailable offence where witnesses are examined and trial can be concluded within six months.
Whether time should be granted to the trial court to expedite the conclusion of the proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mangal Musahar @ Mangal Mushar
The State of Bihar
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
