Patna High CourtCR. MISC./64319/2023rejected

Guddu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-22Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64319 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-421 Year-2017 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== GUDDU MANJHI SON OF RAM BALAK MANJHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SORAMPUR, PS- DULHINBAZAR, DIST -PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 376, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 73888 of 2019. Now the fresh ground for regular bail of the petitioner is that he is in custody since 12.12.2017.

4. Learned A.P.P for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merit and now there is no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64319 of 2023(5) dt.22-12-2023 2/2 fresh ground except the period of custody.

5. By order dated 03.11.2023, a report was called for from the Trial Court with regard to the stage of trial. The report has been received and is kept at Flag-T. Perusal of the report shows that out of eight witnesses, seven have already been examined and the case is fixed for examination of investigating officer.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the report received from the trial Court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is again rejected.

6. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months from today.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) tusharika/- U T