Petitioner sought bail in a murder case. Bail was rejected due to criminal antecedents and pending trial. Court directed trial court to conclude trial within nine months.
Bail prayer rejected; Trial to be concluded within nine 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.37842 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -76 Year- 2006 Thana -CHARPOKHARI District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== 1. Vikash Sonar @ Sonu son of Vijay Sonar. Resident of villageHawelipur, P.S.- Charpokhari, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 21-11-2016 Heard both sides. The petitioner seeks bail in Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 76 of 2006, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner and two other accused persons are alleged to have caught the brother of the informant. The petitioner strangulated the brother of the informant. On search, the dead body was recovered from the bush.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in jail for the last seven and half years but the trial has not yet been concluded.
It appears that the trial of the petitioner was separated from the original trial i.e., S.Tr. No. 111/2007 as the petitioner was
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37842 of 2016 (3) dt.21-11-2016
2/2
sent to Buxar jail in another case. The petitioner has got criminal antecedents.
Considering the fact aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge V, Ara, who is in seisin of S.Tr. No. 14/2016, is directed to expedite the trial and hold the same on day to day basis and conclude the trial of the petitioner along with S.Tr. No. 111/07, if possible within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The S.P., Ara is also directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the court so that the trial must be concluded within nine months.
If the trial is not concluded within stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge V, Ara as well as the S.P., Ara for information and needful.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)
Rakhi
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC given his criminal antecedents and pending special trial.
How to expedite the conclusion of the special trial involving the petitioner.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikash Sonar @ Sonu
The State of Bihar
PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
