The High Court rejected the petitioners' plea for bail in Sessions Trial No. 2/15/221/16. The bench held bail cannot be granted as the case was pending solely due to the lingering attitude of the defense after the prosecution had closed its case.
The prayer for bail was 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.2844 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -145 Year- 2014 Thana -DURGAWATI District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR)
====================================================== Ajai Kumar Maurya @ Karan, son of Dhannu Lal Maurya, resident of Village- Phoolwariy Kotula Road, P.S. Kant, District- Varanasi, U.P.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8422 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -145 Year- 2014 Thana -DURGAWATI District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR)
====================================================== Ashish Kumar Srivastava Son of late Ashok Kumar Srivastava Resident of Village- Phulwariya, Police Station Kaint, District Varanasi U.P..
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No.2844 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Bachan Singh, APP (In Cr.Misc. No.8422 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Thakur, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
4 19-04-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioners seek bail in Durgawati P.S. Case No. 145/2014 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 2/15/221/16, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2844 of 2017 (4) dt.19-04-2017
2/2
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have renewed their prayer for bail only because the trial has not yet been concluded, but from perusal of the record, it appears that prosecution closed its case much earlier and the case was fixed for defense evidence after recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defense examined 04 witnesses and the same was closed on 18.10.2016. The case was thereafter fixed for argument. The prosecution closed the argument on 20.02.2017 and since then the case is pending for the argument of the defense. The case is pending only due to lingering attitude of the defense.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)
Vinita/U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners considering the delay in trial proceedings due to defense inactivity whereas prosecution had closed its case earlier.
Ajai Kumar Maurya @ Karan
Ashish Kumar Srivastava
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
