Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57737/2015rejected

Kamlesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-02-24Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57737 of 2015 (3) dt.24-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57737 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2015 Thana -SIKARHATA District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Kamlesh Singh Son of Rajendra Singh R/o Village Devraji Tola, P.S. Sikarhata, District Bhojpur at Ara (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Pd.Tiwary(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sikarhata P.S. Case No. 62 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner assaulted the informant and two others with Bhala causing injuries to all the three and intestine of Prabhawati Devi the sister of the informant came out. Submission is of false implication and that there was no intention to commit murder, hardly case under Section 324 IPC is made out, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 11.09.2015 and as such now he deserves sympathetic consideration to which

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57737 of 2015 (3) dt.24-02-2016 the learned A.P.P. seriously opposes by submitting that injuries caused by petitioner have been found dangerous to life. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner which finds support from injury reports and as such at this stage this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within six months failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) siddharth/- U T