Babloo Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12863 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2018 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Babloo Mandal, Son of Sita Ram Chouhan, Resident of Village- Meghua Bathni, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tarun Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 342 of 2018, G.R. No. 2167 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307,302,120(B),34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner and others indiscriminately fired while the informant was coming along with his father on a motorcycle. The firing caused several injuries to the father of the informant as a result whereof father of the informant died at the spot. When the informant was fleeing, co-accused Bihari Mandal and Bishnu Deo Mandal as well as Jitendra Kumar fired at him which caused injury at his leg.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12863 of 2019(4) dt.19-06-2019 2/2 police did not found blood at the place of recovery of dead body. Hence, it appears that murder was committed somewhere else and the dead body was brought at the place of recovery. He further submits that the deceased was himself a convict for imprisonment of life and was murdered due to previous criminal activity.

The post-mortem report is consistent with allegation in the FIR. The eye-witnesses of the occurrence, especially, the informant who is one of the injured of the occurrence, have supported the allegation.

Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail. Hence, prayer is refused.

The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within nine months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer. (Birendra Kumar, J) khushbu/- U T