Vishwajeet Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1892 HP

                                                      1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                              SHIMLA
                                         Cr.M.P.(M) No. 336 of 2021




                                                                                .

                                         Date of Decision: March 9, 2021





    Vishwajeet Kumar                                                                ...Petitioner.

                                                  Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                       ..Respondent.


    Coram:


    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the Petitioner:                  Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate.

    For the Respondent:                  Mr.Raju Ram             Rahi,      Deputy       Advocate
                                         General.



                                         SI Jeet Ram, Police Station, Kala Amb,
                                         District Sirmour, H.P., present in person.




    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)

Present petition has been filed seeking regular bail

under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.'),

seeking regular bail in case FIR No.71 of 2016 dated 04.09.2016,

registered in Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmour, H.P., under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' in short).

2. Status report stands filed, wherein it is stated that now

case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 17.05.2021.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

It is stated by Sub-Inspector Jeet Ram, present in Court that only

three prosecution witnesses are left and case is at advanced stage.

3. It is submitted that earlier petitioner was enlarged on

.

bail by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 03.01.2017.

However, thereafter, he had absconded and did not attend the trial

Court and thereafter arrest warrant was issued against him and by

making earnest efforts he could be apprehended on 18.03.2018

only in Patna with great difficulty.

4. Considering entire facts and circumstances narrated in

the status report and also the fact that case is at advanced stage, I

do not consider it a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail at

this stage. However, at the same time it is expected from the trial

Court that earnest efforts shall be made for completing the trial as

early as possible preferably within six months.

5. Petition is dismissed in aforesaid terms.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),

Judge.

March 9, 2021

(Purohit)