Abhishekh Raj @ Abhishek Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7896 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2022 Thana- BIRAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Abhishekh Raj @ Abhishek Raj S/o Bihari Lal Deo R/o Vill - Lagapur, P.S. - Baheri, Dist. - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.7.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42093 of 2023 with a liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, son of the informant had gone to Balha Chowk and did not return till late night. On next morning a Whatsapp photograph of dead body of his son was received on his elder son's mobile with an audio message from which it reveals that accused Manjay Yadav had killed his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7896 of 2024(5) dt.21-06-2024 2/3 son after inflicting gunshot injury.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Specific allegation of opening fire is against co-accused Manjay Yadav, who has already been enlarged on bail vide order dt. 3.5.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10019 of 2023. The case of the petitioner stands on better footing to co-accused Manjay Yadav. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and languishing in judicial custody since 1.3.2022.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite direction given by this court, trial court has not concluded the trial within time and still the case is fixed for adducing the prosecution witnesses.

6. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the period of custody of the petitioner, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Biraul in connection with S.T. No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7896 of 2024(5) dt.21-06-2024 3/3 278 of 2022 arising out of Biraul P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U