Ranjeet Kumar Ranjan vs State Of Bihar on 13 April, 2011

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                       Cr.Misc. No.37770 of 2010
                       RANJEET KUMAR RANJAN, Son of Late Rajendra Prasad,
     Resident of Mohalla Mahendru, Engineering college Campus, P.S. Pirbahore,
    District Patna, Permanent resident of village - Soh Sarai, near Post Office, Bich
                         Bazar, P.S. Sohsarai, District Nalanda
                                                                         ..... Petitioner
                                                      Versus
                                 STATE OF BIHAR ..... Opposite Party
                                                    -----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dudhnath Singh, Advocate
For the State : None

——

7 13.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one

appears on behalf of the State. Perused the report kept at flag

‘A’.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for

offences punishable under Sections 304(B) of the Indian

Penal Code.

Petitioner’s prayer for bail has earlier been

rejected vide order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Cr. Misc.

No. 30285 of 2009 as contained in Annexure 1.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

there has been delay in lodging the first information report

and the death of the victim was accidental.

However, considering all the allegation and

materials on record the petitioner’s prayer for bail was

rejected by the aforesaid order on earlier occasion. No
2

fresh ground could be set forth by the petitioner for grant

of bail. In the result this application is dismissed at this

stage.

However, it appears that charges were framed

on 15.1.2009 and only four chargesheet witnesses could be

examined out of thirteen chargesheet witnesses till the date

of report kept at flag ‘A’ . The petitioner is in custody

since 25.7.2007.

In above view of the matter, it would be expected

from the trial court to take every possible step for disposal

of the concerned trial preferably within six months. If the

trial is not concluded within six months, then, if so advised,

the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for

bail.

From perusal of report, it appears that the

concerned officer has not given any explanation for non

compliance of order of this Court passed on earlier

occasion. Let a reminder be sent to the concerned with a

copy to the District Judge concerned to submit

explanation, so as to reach this Court within two weeks.

Put up this matter after two weeks.

Spd/-                           ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)
 3