IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14942 of 2011
Md. Jani, son of Md. Shamim, resident of village Chhoti
Nagla, P.S. Malsalami, District Patna
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Nath, A.P.P.
4 24.08.2011
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
Perused the report kept at Flag ‘A’ and the
affidavit filed on behalf of the Sr. S.P. Patna.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 328 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner’s prayer has been rejected earlier on
twice vide Annexure 2 series.
It is submitted that the deposition of the
mother of the deceased before the trial court shows
contradiction from her stand taken before the police and
the charges have been framed on 11.5.2010 itself but
only three witnesses have been examined till date,
though they are the family members of the deceased.
2
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna, it has been
categorically stated that the rest witnesses would be
examined within six months.
In view of the gravity of the allegation made
in the first information report and the materials collected
in course of investigation including viscera report
which shows presence of celphos in the sample
concerned, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
On the earlier occasion the trial court was
directed to dispose of the trial within nine months and
Sr. Superintendent of Police , Patna was also required
to take every step for ensuring the presence of the
prosecution witnesses on the date fixed by the trial
court, even then, however, no official witnesses have
been examined. However, in view of the categorical
statement taken in paragraph no. 9 of the counter
affidavit, it is expected from the Sr. S.P., Patna to
ensure that the rest prosecution witnesses are
produced on the date fixed by the trial court as per his
3
undertaking. It is also expected from the trial court to
take every step for expeditious disposal of the trial
court preferably within seven months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
If the trial is not concluded within the
aforesaid period then, if so advised, the petitioner
would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to
the learned counsel appearing for the State for
communication and compliance.
Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)