Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7696/2019rejected

Bullack Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2019-03-27Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7696 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2018 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria ====================================================== BULLACK YADAV aged about 50 years (male) son of Chhati Yadav, Resident of village- Mathar, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 27-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No. 283 of 2018 arising out of Khagaria (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2018/ G.R. No. 1090 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 386, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the occurrence took place on 21.04.2018 whereas the F.IR. has been lodged on 27.04.2018 after lapse of five days which creates doubt over of the prosecution version. Moreover charge has been framed in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7696 of 2019(3) dt.27-03-2019 2/2 this case but no witnesses have turned up till date and the petitioner is rotting in custody since 23.12.2018. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of assault against the petitioner and the petitioner has got a series of criminal antecedents.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from today and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Brajesh/- U T