Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2818 of 2012 ====================================================== Mahendra Das, son of Babua Das, Resident of village Dharampura, P.s. Shakurabad, District – Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 5 28-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under [STATUTE] . Petitioner’s prayer for bail has earlier been rejected vide order dated 28.04.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6787 of 2010 as contained in Annexure 1. I have also perused the report kept at Flags ‘A’, ‘B’ and explanation kept at Flag ‘C’. However, it has been jointly submitted on behalf of the parties that doctor and the Investigating Officer, who could not be examined till the date of filing of the application, have now been examined and from the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2818 of 2012 (5) dt.28-03-2012 2 / 2 2 report of the concerned court kept at Flag ‘A’ it appears that the case was pending only for the evidence of the doctor, namely Dr. Binod Kumar Singh and the Investigating Officer, namely Sitaram Deo. The prayer for bail has already been rejected on merit. However, a point has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has remained in custody since 14.07.2009. However, in view of the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have now been examined and the petitioner’s prayer for bail had been rejected on merit on earlier occasion in view of the direct allegation that he along with his associates had administered poison upon the deceased, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly this application is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the petitioner has remained in custody since 14.7.2009, it is expected from the trial court to take every step for expeditious disposal of the trial preferably within four months. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 328

Statute Text:
Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. Administering stupefying drug with intent to cause hurt, etc. Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.