Arvind Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51654 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -97 Year- 2014 Thana -PATAHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Arvind Singh son of Rajendra Singh resident of Village - Padumker, P.S. - Patahi, District - East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ambika Bhagat (Spl.App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C, section 27 of the Arms Act and sections 3 (i) (x) (xv) and 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act.

Allegedly, Birendra Baitha @ Sonelal Baitha, the son of the informant, had gone to attend the call of nature and thereafter he was hearing religious song on his mobile and then the sound of indiscriminate firing was heard and thereafter the informant went there and saw Birendra Baitha twisting. It is alleged that the villager Bikau Baitha has seen the occurrence and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51654 of 2015 (4) dt.20-04-2016 2/3 further the informant claims to identify the petitioner fleeing away with the illegal arms and earlier he has caused threats to the deceased also.

Submission is of false implication and that the informant is not an eye witness which is evident from his earlier paragraphs, the statement of the informant is self contradictory, co-accused Shiv Shankar Singh, Pappu Singh, Guddu Kumar and Horil Singh @ Rakesh Singh have been granted bail by this Court, whereas, other co-accused, namely, Janab Singh @ Amrendra Singh, Rajan Kumar Singh, Rambabu Sah and Gagandeo Sahani have been granted bail by the learned court below itself and as such the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration as no one has seen the petitioner committing murder of the deceased. The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for bail by submitting that besides the informant Bikau Baitha has also seen the petitioner fleeing away after the occurrence and as such the case of the petitioner stands on the different footing.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51654 of 2015 (4) dt.20-04-2016 3/3 such prayer stands rejected in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 97 of 2014 pending in the court of Sri R. Kumar-IV, J.M. 1st Class, Sadar Motihari, East Champaran.

However, considering detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded within nine months, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T