Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17035/2020rejected

Harekrishna Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-01Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17035 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2019 Thana- AWTARNAGAR District- Saran ====================================================== Harekrishna Singh Son of Narvadeshvar Singh Resident of Village - Dhanoura Bazar, P.S.- Awtarnagar, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-09-2020 This matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offences punishable under Sections 147/341/379 /324 /326 / 504/302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Awtarnagar P.S. Case No. 148 of 2019.

According to FIR, the petitioner and others bitterly assaulted with dagger to Ashutosh Kumar as a result whereof Ashutosh Kumar died. The case-diary would reveal that the witnesses, who reached, at the place of occurrence hearing alarm of the occurrence, have supported the allegation before the police. The doctor has found multiple wound on the person of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17035 of 2020(3) dt.01-09-2020 2/2 deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and afterthought allegation is there. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He is in custody since 20.08.2019. Investigation of the case is already complete. Petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial.

Considering the nature of allegation and available material, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. However, if the trial would not conclude within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner may renew the prayer for bail.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T