Sonu Singh @ Sonu Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.51675 of 2015 ======================================================
1. Sonu Singh @ Sonu Kumar Singh Son of Madan Singh Resident of Village- Bahuara, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Rajpur P.S. Case No.133 of 2015 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per allegation made in the First Information Report there was a land dispute between the parties. Two groups have gone to the disputed land. As per claim of the petitioner land has been mutated in the name of petitioner's side. It has been alleged that Jitendra Choubey has caused lathi injury on the leg of the deceased whereupon the petitioner and one Dhananjay Singh each have caused fire injury to the deceased. There is direct allegation against the petitioner.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51675 of 2015 (3) dt.30-01-2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of post-mortem only one injury has been found. The police has also recovered two cartridges from the place of occurrence fired from one pistol. It is not clear that from whose bullet deceased has died. Deceased has died from his own licensee weapon itself. So much so from the side of the petitioner one person has also died.
Looking to the nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U T