Ranjit Gupta @ Ranjit Kumar Tanti @ Raju v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3581 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-577 Year-2019 Thana- SAHAYAK NAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== RANJIT GUPTA @ RANJIT KUMAR TANTI @ RAJU Son of - Mahendra Prasad Das R/O- Tejatola, P.S. - Sahayak, Dist. - Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sayed Imran Ghani For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-02-2020 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Nagar Sahayak (Katihar Town) P.S. Case No. 577 of 2019, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation as per F.I.R is that petitioner and other accused persons had taken the deceased from the house and later on the informant was informed that her son was brutally assaulted, thereafter, the informant went to the place of occurrence and saw that petitioner and others were assaulting his son with brick and stone. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to hospital and was referred to Siliguri for treatment, where he died.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R and secondly the persons, who

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3581 of 2020(3) dt.28-02-2020 2/2 informed the informant about the occurrence has not been examined in this case and thirdly, earlier during investigation, his involvement was not found but still chargesheet has been submitted against him. Further submission is that he has no criminal antecedent and he has been in custody for more than three months.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that several injuries were found on the person of the deceased and apart from that witnesses have taken the name of petitioner.

Having heard both sides, in view of the nature of allegation, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, since the petitioner has been in custody, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T