Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 488 (PAT)

Navin Singh v. State of Bihar

2008-03-12

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard on the bail prayer made on behalf of the petitioner Navin Singh who is an accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 176/2007 arising out of Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 228/2005 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-FTC-IV, Saran at Chapra. 2. Petitioner stands implicated under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was earlier refused bail vide order dated 19.9.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18391/2006. Thereafter, he was again denied bail vide order dated 23.5.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. 5968/ 2007 with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial with the following observations: "prayer for bail stands rejected with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and to see that witnesses of the prosecution should be provided adequate security so that there should not be any delay in concluding the trial. In case of non-conclusion of trial within a period of six months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the trial court itself provided evidence of' some material witnesses is recorded." 3. Petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition for bail in the trial court and his prayer for bail was rejected. 4. It appears from the impugned order dated 14.12.2007 of the learned trial court that evidence of three material witnesses have also been recorded. It also appears that some of the accused persons (not this petitioner) took time as they filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for their discharge and, thereafter, charges against the accused persons were ultimately framed on 6.11.2007. Four witnesses have been examined so far on behalf of the prosecution. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the informant that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has been extending threat to the witnesses whose statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded after submission of the charge-sheet and they are material witnesses for the prosecution. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply, has submitted that those witnesses should not be examined on behalf of the prosecution as their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded after conclusion of the investigation. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply, has submitted that those witnesses should not be examined on behalf of the prosecution as their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded after conclusion of the investigation. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the law provides such continuance of further investigation and thereby examination of the witnesses under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 9. In the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the accused-petitioner remained in custody for about four months even after framing of the charge. The trial has commenced and in case it is not concluded within another two months i.e. 6.5.2008, the matter should remain open for consideration of his bail before this Court and the petitioner will be at liberty to present his application for bail before this Court. 10. For the reasons stated above, the prayer for bail stands rejected for the present.