Prem Rawani v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6369 of 2016 (3) dt.21-06-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6369 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -158 Year- 2015 Thana -BUNIADGANJ District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Prem Rawani S/o Late Ramashish Rawani resident of village - Naudhariya, P.S. - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kr.Virendra Narayan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 158 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner along with others is named in the First Information Report with allegation that they have killed Suraj Kumar, the son of the informant when he had gone to take bath in Aahar. During investigation, the witnesses have stated that the deceased was catching fish in the Aahar and in the meantime, the petitioner came and caught him and threw him down resulting the deceased died and then at the instigation of one un-known person, the petitioner threw the dead body in the water. Submission is of false implication and that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6369 of 2016 (3) dt.21-06-2016 informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence, the statement of the witnesses who are own family members of the informant are not reliable and without any fault, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 27.10.2015. No offence under Section 302 IPC is made out and at best it can be a case under Section 304 IPC. The learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that Sankar Yadav, being an eye witness, has stated the name of the petitioner as the assailant which is recorded in para-8 of the case diary and further other witnesses have also supported the same.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, at present I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 158 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Gaya.

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