High Court rejected the petitioner's application for bail for the third time in a murder case. The Court observed that private witnesses were examined and noted the serious nature of the allegations involving the accused spouse.
Petitioner's prayer for bail is 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 10975 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-531 Year-2018 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
MUNNA SINGH Son of Amarnath Singh Resident of Village- Mahaddichak, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for brevity, APP ) appearing for the State of Bihar.
The petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Trial No 4 of 2019 arising out of Bihta Police Station Case No 531 of 2018 dated 14.05.2020 instituted originally for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 326 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity, IPC ) but later on added with Section 304 (B) of IPC.
Petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail for the third time. Earlier two rejections are dated 27.11.2019 and 15.03.2021 in Cr Misc No 55263 of 2019 and Cr Misc No 31523 of 2020. Having regard to the allegation and Fardbayan of the deceased, prior to her death, naming the petitioner (husband) as the person who poured kerosene oil and lit fire on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10975 of 2022(2) dt.20-04-2022 2/2
her body, the prayer for bail was earlier rejected.
Petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 14.08.2018. It is further submitted that there is no substantial progress in the trial.
The learned APP submits that from the order dated 27.06.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Danapur rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for bail, it is apparent that the private witnesses have already been examined and only doctor and Investigating Officer remained to be examined at the trial.
Considering the rival submissions, this Court is not inclined to take a different view today. Prayer for bail is again rejected.
It is, however, observed that the Court below shall proceed expeditiously with the trial to ensure its conclusion, without granting any undue adjournment or undue delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant proceedings today for depositing requisite Court fee and removing the defect (s), as pointed out, when called upon to do so.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
M.E.H. /-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail considering the severity of the allegation and pending trial status.
Whether substantial progress in the trial justifies a fresh bail hearing.
Munna Singh
The State of Bihar
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
