Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7689/2024dismissed

Nanddeo Mandal @ Nanddeo @Nandlal Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7689 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2023 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Nanddeo Mandal @ Nanddeo @Nandlal Mandal SON OF DHARMBIR MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MUSHKIPUR, PS- GOGARI, DISTKHAGARIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dewendra Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 227 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341/323/324/307/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner is said to have assaulted the deceased with iron Baithi (a weapon used for cutting the fish). The deceased died after about a month while under treatment in AIIMS, Patna. The petitioner is in jail since 27.06.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though three injuries have been found on the head of the deceased but the petitioner is said to have given only one injury on the deceased. He also relies upon the postmortem report to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7689 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 submit that the petitioner had died of Septicemia.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties.

7. From the postmortem report, it appears that the deceased died of Septicemia as a complication of the head injury and the petitioner is the author of the head injury.

8. In view of the above, this application is dismissed.

9. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T