Petitioner sought bail in a case involving offences under Sections 304B, 201, and 120B of the IPC. The court, noting the trial was near conclusion, declined to review the earlier bail refusal order and disposed of the application.
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.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43895 of 2018 (3) dt.19-09-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43895 of 2018
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -226 Year- 2016 Thana -KOILWAR District- BHOJPUR
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER
3 19-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The report of the learned trial Judge i.e. 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara dated 12.09.2018 reveals that the trial is at the fag end of conclusion. Hence, this Court is not inclined to review the earlier order of refusal of prayer for bail to the petitioner in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 226 of 2016.
Hence, this application stands disposed of for the
present.
(Birendra Kumar, J)
Kundan/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the earlier order of refusal of bail should be reviewed given the trial stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sonu Kumar
The State of Bihar
Birendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
