High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunil Singh vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 4 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 PAT CK 0012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 302 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18892 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 393 words
1.

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2.

Heard Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Renuka Ratnakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

3.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Chausa PS Case No. 227 of 2018 dated 29.08.2018, instituted under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the

Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4.

This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by judgment and order dated 19.06.2020 passed in Cr. Misc.

No. 8403 of 2020.

5.

As the Court in order dated 19.06.2020 had directed for expediting the trial, a report was called for from the Court below with regard to the

status/position of the trial as also likely time by which it was expected to be concluded.

6.

Pursuant to the same, a report has been received from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madhepura dated 15.07.2021, in which it has been

stated that charge has been framed against the petitioner and one other co-accused on 03.07.2021 and the case has been fixed for prosecution

evidence for whom summons have been handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor, Madhepura. It has further been stated that because of surge in

the pandemic relating to COVID-19, there is difficulty being faced in examination and cross-examination of witnesses in the Court room and, thus,

some time would be required for disposal. It has been indicated that when the same resumes, the time for concluding the trial was likely to take 12

months.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court may fix a time period for conclusion of the trial.

8.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also merits of the matter as has

been discussed in the last order of rejection dated 19.06.2020, the Court is not inclined to reconsider the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

9.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

10.

However, in view of the report of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madhepura, it is directed that the trial be expedited and concluded at

the earliest preferably within 15 months from today.

11.

Registry shall communicate the order to the Court below for compliance forthwith.