Anil Baitha @ Anil Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 18140 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2019 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Anil Baitha @ Anil Chaudhary, Male, aged about 54 years, Son of Jalandhar Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Makdumpur, Kodaria, PS- Karja, DistrictMuzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Niranjan Parihar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-08-2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Niranjan Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kalyan Shankar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Karja PS Case No. 122 of 2019 dated 20.05.2019, instituted under Sections 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by judgment and order dated 11.06.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8448 of 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner addressed the Court on merits. However, in view of merits having been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18140 of 2021 dt.04-08-2021 2/2 considered in the earlier order of rejection dated 11.06.2020, when the Court called upon him to restrict his submission to what were the mitigating circumstances after the previous order for the Court to consider in the present matter, he submitted that a direction be given to the Court below to expedite the trial.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner having been identified in the CCTV footage in an incident in which the victim was fired upon and killed and more than Rs. 13 lakhs was looted, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner as no fresh ground or mitigating circumstances have been brought to its notice.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

9. However, the Court below is directed to expedite the trial.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T