Dipu Baitha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46969 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -145 Year- 2013 Thana -DARAUNDA ( M. H. Nagar) District- SIWAN ====================================================== Chaneshwar Singh @ Chandeshwar Singh S/o Late Satya Narayan Singh Resident of Village Merhi, P.S. M.H. Nagar, District Siwan. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.50584 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -145 Year- 2013 Thana -DARAUNDA ( M.H. Nagar) District- SIWAN ====================================================== Dipu Baitha Son of Lallan Baitha resident of Village : - Merhi, P.S. : - M. H. Nagar, District - Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Cr.Misc. No.46969 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mustaque Alam, APP (In Cr.Misc. No.50584 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastva, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 20-03-2015 Both these applications arise out of Daraunda (MH Nagar) P. S. Case No. 145 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46969 of 2014 (4) dt.20-03-2015 2/2 Allegation against the petitioners is to have cut the throat of Brahma Chaudhary, father of the informant which caused his death.

It appears that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioners was rejected vide Annexure-1. The report of the trial Court has been received which shows that all the material witnesses have been examined and the case is fixed for examination of the Investigating Officer and it has been expected that trial would be concluded within three months. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioners do not deserve bail at this stage. Their prayer for bail is rejected.

Let the trial be expedited and concluded as per the estimated time of the trial Court.

However, if the trial is not concluded within the estimated time of the trial Court, the petitioners will be at liberty to move the trial Court for grant of bail.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) Kanchan/- U T