Krishna Kumar @ Krishn Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13510 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2019 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== KRISHNA KUMAR @ KRISHN KUMAR Son of Raj Kumar Sharma @ Kripal Sharma Resident of Village - Paharchak, P.S. - Chautham District - khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nakul Kumar Jamuar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 26-07-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove all the defects as pointed out by office within four weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Chautham P.S. Case No.180/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story this petitioner had entered into the house of the informant through the roof and pointed out his pistol upon the daughter of the informant and told her to accompany him and get married with him, when she refused and opposed such move of the petitioner, the petitioner shot her dead.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13510 of 2021(2) dt.26-07-2021 2/2 Learned counsel submits that from the First Information Report it appears that the daughter of the informant namely Julie Kumari was sitting there and she has been made an eye witness but she has not lodged the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2019.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that this petitioner is the sole assailant who had fired from his pistol killing the daughter of the informant, the trial has also began and three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the allegations and the materials placed before this Court, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Prayer for bail is, thus, refused.

Let the trial be expedited. All endeavours be made to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of start of normal functioning of the Court.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.