Ram Bali Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6371 of 2015 Arising Out of P.S. Case No. -340 Year- 2014 Thana -MAJORGANJ District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Ram Bali Singh S/o Late Ram Bihari Singh Resident of Village Muradpur Narkatiya, Police Station Mejorganj, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.K.Choudhary, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Majorganj P.S. Case No. 340 of 2014 registered under Sections 385, 387 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The informant named one Mukesh Pathak and alleged that Mukesh Pathak and other accused came at his worksite and made indiscriminate firing as they were demanding extortion of rupees seven lakhs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Name of the petitioner figured in the confessional statements of Bindu Singh, Santosh Singh, Jitendra Singh, Vijay Jha and other persons, but three persons, namely, Bindu Singh, Santosh Singh and Vijay Jha have already been examined in course of trial and they did not support

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6371 of 2015 (3) dt.15-04-2015 2/2 the prosecution case.

It appears from perusal of the case diary that firstly Binda Singh in para 16, Santosh Singh and Jitendra Singh have named the petitioner. Only three witnesses have been examined, who did not support the prosecution case.

Having considered the facts that the case relates to demand of extortion and indiscriminate firing for stopping construction work of a Girls High School, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt / production of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail firstly in the trial court.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T