Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Niranjan Kumar, Son of Shailendra Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No.25456 Of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - The court dismissed the petitioner's bail application, considering the stage of the case, the number of witnesses examined, and the likelihood of the case being disposed of within three months. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in connection with a case under Sections 304-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner had previously been denied bail twice.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, citing the stage of the case, the previous rejections of bail, and the absence of mitigating circumstances except for the time spent in custody. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within three months.
Issues: Bail application, stage of the case, previous rejections of bail, mitigating circumstances, expeditious trial
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the stage of the case, the number of witnesses examined, and the likelihood of the case being disposed of within three months in denying the bail application. The absence of mitigating circumstances except for the time spent in custody also influenced the decision.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within three months.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail being in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2021 (arising out of Parsa Bazar, P.S. Case No. 134 of 2017) dated 06.07.2017 instituted under Sections 304-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. This is the third attempt by the petitioner for bail as earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 27.11.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43868 of 2019 and thereafter again by order dated 03.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1395 of 2021. The Court had called for a report from the trial Court with regard to the stage of the case.
4. In terms thereof, a report has been submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IX, Patna dated 03.12.2022 in which it has been stated that out of seven charge sheet witnesses, three have been examined, one has died and the case is fixed for evidence of the Investigating Officer and doctor for whom bailable warrant had already been issued. Further it has been stated that the case is likely to be disposed of within three months.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid and the fact that on earlier two occasions the prayer for bail has been rejected and there being no mitigating circumstances except for passage of time i.e., the petitioner being in custody for about four years and nine months, the Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and latest within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
8. As Court has granted time based on the report by the trial Court itself, it expects that the trial would positively be concluded within the said period.
The court's decision was based on the merits of the case and the need for an expedited trial process.
The court may decline a bail application based on lack of mitigating circumstances, but can also direct the expeditious conclusion of the trial.
The court emphasizes the importance of mediation in matrimonial disputes and grants provisional bail based on the parties' willingness to settle.
The delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor were key factors in denying bail to the petitioner.
Delayed trial does not guarantee bail, especially in grave offenses; the seriousness of accusations necessitates cautious judicial scrutiny and timely prosecution.
If there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial long period then a period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
