The High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail in a charge sheeted case involving the dowry death of his wife. Noting the trial's advanced stage, the court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within four months.
Prayer for bail rejected; direction to complete trial within four 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.35611 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2019 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
PRADEEP SHARMA SON OF LATE RAMANAND SHARMA Resident of Village- Manjhagarh, Fulwariya, Police Station - Manjhagarh, DistrictGopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
3 28-09-2022
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 538 of 2019 arising out of Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 229 of 2019 (G.R. Case No. 2665 of 2019) dated 24.08.2019 instituted for the offence under Sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 05.06.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4856 of 2020.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has
remained in custody since 30.09.2019, this Court had called for a report about the stage of the case from the court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35611 of 2022(3) dt.28-09-2022 2/2
vide order dated 27.07.2022. The report which has been received and kept at ‘flag-R’ indicates that out of seven prosecution witnesses, five have already been examined and against two of the witnesses summons have been issued.
There is every likelihood of the trial being
concluded in near future.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to give a re-look at the order by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected who is accused of an offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code for having killed his wife.
The prayer for bail is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the
trial positively within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
krishna/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused charged under Section 304(B) IPC given the progress of the trial.
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PRADEEP SHARMA
THE STATE OF BIHAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
