Manoj Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2545 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2018 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Manoj Mehta, s/o Yogendra Mehta Resident of village- Sirikhiriya, P.S.- Rannisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Indiwar Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 257/2018, instituted for offences under Section(s) 341, 323, 504, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged in the written report that on the date of occurrence while son of informant, namely, Roushan Kumar was going to take meal, petitioner along with other accused persons arrived and started abusing. Co-accused Prakash Mehta and Ankit Mehta caught hold the son of informant. Thereafter petitioner assaulted the son of informant with sword causing bleeding injury to him due to which he became unconscious and fell on the ground. Informant and his wife went to save his son then they were also assaulted by petitioner with sword causing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2545 of 2019(5) dt.29-03-2019 2/2 injury to them.

Injury report of the son of informant is available in case diary, wherein it is mentioned that C.T. Scan shows multi fragment displaced fracture in left parietal bone, i.e. bony fragment in scalp soft tissue swelling in left parietal region. In such view of matter, there is specific allegation of assaulting the son of informant against this petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the same as soon as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Petitioner will be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after six months in the event no substantive progress is made in trial.

(Sanjay Priya, J) rakhi/- U T