HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR YADAV – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
CR. MISC./10742/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION)
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10742 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-437 Year-2018 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR YADAV, S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Yadav, R/o
village - Tintenga, P.O.- Tintenga, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Surendra Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant
:
Mr. Dilip Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
3
21-08-2021
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to
remove all the defects as pointed out by office within four
weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned
A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in
connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 437 of 2018 registered
for the offence punishable under Section 366A, 34, 364 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The trial court’s report says that all the prosecution
witnesses have been examined, statement of the accused has
been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case is fixed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10742 of 2021(3) dt.21-08-2021
2/2
for defence evidence.
Considering the nature of allegations and the
materials on the record, this Court is not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail particularly when the trial itself is likely to be
concluded very soon. The trial court is expected to proceed with
the trial on day to day basis, no unnecessary adjournment be
granted to any of the parties and all endeavours be made to
conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date
of start of physical functioning of the court.
If the trial still remains unconcluded for no reason
attributable to the petitioner, he may renew his prayer for bail.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
vats/-
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
U
T
Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present
arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order
uploaded on the High Court website under the heading ‘Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic
Period’.