Partly allowed

Deokinandan Yadav @ Deoki Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC2 Jan 2019CR. MISC./63125/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's bail prayer in a murder case where prosecution witnesses had largely been examined. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within four months, permitting a renewal of the bail application if this direction is not followed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; trial directed to conclude within four months; rights to renew bail prayer retained if trial not concluded.

Deokinandan Yadav @ Deoki Yadav Vs The State Of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.63125 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2015 Thana- ROH District- Nawada

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Deokinandan Yadav @ Deoki Yadav Son of latge Chhotu Yadav, Resident of Village-Garura, P.S.-Roh, .Distt.-Nawada

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No 13, Advocate Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate, For the informant : Mr. Bikramaditya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 02-01-2019

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2016, arising out of Roh P.S. Case No. 69 of 2015, registered under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Nawada.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail prayer of the petitioner was refused thrice lastly on 19.07.2017 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12281 of 2017 with direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial of the petitioner, preferably, within one year by taking all effective

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63125 of 2018(3) dt.02-01-2019 2/2

¶17

steps. The Charge has been framed against the petitioner on 21.05.2016, but not a single prosecution witness has been examined in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 16.08.2015.

¶18

The report, as called for, has been received to the Court of Addl. Session Judge-I, Nawada, vide letter No. 691 of 2018, dated 16.11.2018, which indicates that out of five witnesses, four Chargesheet witnesses have been examined.

¶19

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer of bail of the petitioner at present. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected. However, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Nawada is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within four months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of four months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

¶20

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

¶21

manish/-

¶22

U T

Deokinandan Yadav @ Deoki Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deokinandan Yadav @ Deoki Yadav 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

Sonu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Rana @ Ranjeet Rai and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Manoj Kumar @ Chacha Manoj Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Praveen Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Tinku Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Kailash Prasad Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar