Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4076/2016rejected

Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Mahton v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-18Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4076 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -179 Year- 2014 Thana -KHODABANPUR District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Mahton s/o Ram Bahadur Mahto, R/v Ghakwa, P.S. Khodabandpur, Distt. Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.B.Ray Raman(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khodabandpur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, 7-8 persons being armed came and opened indiscriminate firing upon the husband of the informant causing his death and the informant identifies the petitioner and 5 other coaccused fleeing away. Submission is of false implication and that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner, there is no specific allegation, the identification made by the informant appears not reliable further during investigation no one has seen

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4076 of 2016 (3) dt.18-03-2016 2/2 the petitioner opening fire upon the deceased and, as such, the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 14.05.2015, deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned A.P.P. seriously opposes by submitting that prayer of regular bail of co-accused Umesh Mahto and Mukesh Mahton have already been rejected by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, considering the detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded within a period of nine months.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T