Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1339/2015rejected

Sadanand Maurya v. The State Of Bihar

2015-07-17Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1339 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -145 Year- 2014 Thana -DURGAWATI District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Sadanand Maurya, Son of Ram Dular Kushwaha, Resident of Village - Fulwariya, P.S- Cantt. District- Varanasi (U.P) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the informant : Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate : Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mushtaque Alam (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 17-07-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant.

The petitioner seeks bail in Durgawati P.S. Case No.145 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR was lodged against unknown on the recovery of dead body near Kulhariya Railway Gumti. During investigation, the dead body has been identified as of Satya Prakash Singh, one of the friends of the accused including the petitioner. During investigation, it has come to light that the petitioner has thrashed knife blow causing the death of the deceased.

A report of the trial court dated 26.27.06.2015 shows that there are eight prosecution witnesses, out of whom, three have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1339 of 2015 (5) dt.17-07-2015 2/2 been examined, whereas, the learned counsel for the informant submits that up-till-now five prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have supported the prosecution case and only three prosecution witnesses are left to be examined. The prayer for bail of the other co-accused has been rejected. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. His prayer for bail is rejected.

Let the trial be expedited.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) V.K. Pandey/- U T