Arvind Bhuiyan And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22603 of 2016 (3) dt.12-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22603 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2014 Thana -IMAMGANJ District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Arvind Bhuiyan,

2. Mantu Bhuiyan, Both Sons of Late Raju Bhuiyan, resident of Village- Pathra (Imamganj), P.S- Imamganj, District- Gaya.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 23 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioners assaulted Raju Bhuiyan, the husband of the informant, with lathi-danda, resulting, Raju Bhuiyan died.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioners are the sons of the deceased from his first wife, prosecution story appears not probable and reliable, the deceased has consumed liquor and in intoxicated condition he fell down on brick and received injury on his parietal region and other parts of the body, resulting, in the morning of the next day he died as he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22603 of 2016 (3) dt.12-07-2016 was not provided any medical aid. The informant is step mother of the petitioners and only with a view to take possession over the property of the deceased, she implicated the petitioners. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioners are the assailants and during investigation the witnesses have supported the prosecution version. In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, accordingly, their such prayer stands rejected. However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T