Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42454/2014dismissed

Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Kumar Pathak v. The State Of Bihar

2015-02-16Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42454 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -19 Year- 2011 Thana -PIYAR District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Kumar Pathak S/o Vinod Pathak Resident of Village - Tapari, P.S. Piar, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Bansh Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2015 Heard both sides.

Petitioner, Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Kumar Pathak, seeks bail in Piar P.S. Case No.19 of 2011, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act corresponding to Sessions Trial No.620 of 2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the first information report. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner was not even put on test identification parade. Charges have already been framed. It is further submitted that the case of the coaccused has already been separated and some witnesses have already been examined.

On perusal of the record it appears that the occurrence

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42454 of 2014 (3) dt.16-02-2015 2/2 is of 17.03.2011 but the witnesses, namely, Ram Pravesh Paswan, Basant Kumar, Munna Sahani, Sachindra Mahto and Rajendra Sahani have stated that at the time of occurrence, petitioner and Bunti went there and immediately thereafter they heard the sound of firing.

Considering the facts and nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within six months, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail firstly before the trial court.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) B.T/- U T