IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21545 of 2010 PARSURAM PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 29.6.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioner is an accused in Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.362 of 2001, dated 1.10.2001 registered under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier twice rejected by this court. Thereafter the petitioner filed Cr.Misc.No.12904 of 2010 in which he has limited his prayer for grant of provisional bail for a period of four weeks on the ground of his treatment in IGIMS, Patna. The petitioner stated that he is suffering from Hepatitis B and generally no one is willing to touch his body as he is suffering from infectious disease. It was further submitted that if the petitioner does not get immediate treatment, he may even die. On the aforesaid premise, this court by order dated 12.5.2010 granted him provisional bail for a period of four weeks from the date of his release. The petitioner filed the instant modification application on 23.6.2010. He states that he was released from custody on 25.5.2010 and was to surrender on 21.6.2010, on which date the period of provisional bail come to an end. The 2 petitioner submits that after release from custody, he is continuously under the treatment of Doctors of IGIMS, Patna where the Doctors have advised him for check up including various pathological tests. Now the petitioner prays for extension of his provisional bail for another period of two weeks and thereafter he would not pray for any further extension. Learned counsel for the informant submits that thought the petitioner was released from custody on 25.5.2010, he consulted the Doctors in IGIMS, Patna only on 16.6.2010, as would be evident from Annexure-1. He submits that if the petitioner was suffering from so serious disease, he would have consulted the Doctors of IGIMS immediately after his release from custody and not after 20 days of his release. He further submits that the petitioner after his release from custody has started threatening the prosecution witness to change his statement in court, otherwise he would have to face with dire consequences. Learned counsel further submits that earlier the petitioner was granted provisional bail by this court by order dated 15.1.2008 passed in Cr.Misc.No.997 of 2008 for a period of six weeks from the date of his release on the ground of treatment of his wife Poonam Pandey said to be suffering from cancer. Thereafter the period of his surrender was extended for a further period of five weeks with a direction to surrender before the court concerned after completion of the period of five weeks. The petitioner on that occasion also misused the provisional bail 3 KHAN and subsequently he was arrested on 14.10.2009. He further submits that the petitioner had not cooperated with the Jail authorities/Doctors while he was in custody. The Jail Superintendent also reported that he is mentally and physically fit. In the instant case all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and now the case is pending for examination of the defence witness. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioner had earlier misused the provisional bail, this court directs that the petitioner must surrender in the court below by 3rd July, 2010 failing which the trial court would take all coercive steps for taking the petitioner in custody. As all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, it goes without saying that the trial court would expedite the disposal of the case and conclude it expeditiously preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, this application stands dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)