Pappu Deo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23699 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -61 Year- 1999 Thana -BIHRA District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Pappu Deo, son of Durga Nand Deo, resident of village + P.O.+ Bihra, P.S.- Bihra, District- Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since 26.02.2014 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2014, arising out of Bihra P.S. Case No. 61 of 1999 for the offences instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that while the informant alongwith his uncle coming from Patori Bazar on 23.10.1999, this petitioner and others surrounded and assaulted to the informant's uncle. On protest, co-accused Bipin Pandey caused fire arm injury upon him. When he tried to flee away then this petitioner and others open firing indiscriminately as a result of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23699 of 2016 (6) dt.06-09-2016 2/2 which he fell down after receiving injury and died. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2014 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. There is no allegation of tampering of the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The main allegation is against co-accused, namely, Amarjeet Roy. The petioner is said to have caught hold of the deceased at the time of occurrence. No injury has been attributed against the petitioner. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He has actively participated in the alleged occurrence and he is involved as many as in 21 cases of similar nature.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2014, arising out of Bihra P.S. Case No. 61 of 1999, pending in the court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa. The court below is directed to take all necessary steps to expedite the trial.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T