Vinay Yadav @ Vinay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13431 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2020 Thana- AGIAON District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Vinay Yadav @ Vinay Singh Son Of Late Lalan Singh R/O Village- Katariya Ke Kasibadwa Tola, Ward No.05, P.S.- Agiaon Bazar, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Matloob Rab ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 31-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 of the Indian penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, informant and his brother-in-law, namely, Rakesh Kumar went to Shiv Mandir, in the meantime, petitioner and co-accused Judge Yadav and two other persons surrounded with common intention to kill them. Specific allegation against the petitioner is that he shot fire which hit to Rakesh Kumar Singh below his chest as a result of which he become unconscious.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no repeation of blow against the petitioner. Medical treatment of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13431 of 2023(4) dt.31-07-2023 2/2 injured Rakesh Kumar Singh was done in private hospital whereas government hospital is available at every district. Petitioner is in custody since 28.09.2022.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant and submitted that during investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Petitioner is a man of criminal nature and he has seven criminal antecedents.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. Progress report dt. 12.7.2023 suggests that six prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and trial is likely to be concluded within eighteen months

8. The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within nine months, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U