Krishna Chaudhary @ Kishun Chaudhary @ Krishna Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13966 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2006 Thana- BAGENGOLA District- Buxar ====================================================== KRISHNA CHAUDHARY @ KISHUN CHAUDHARY @ KRISHNA SINGH S/O LATE SUKH LAL CHAUDHARY R/O VILLAGEBARUHAN, WARD NO.-11, P.S- BAGENGOLA, DISTT.- BUXAR. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Parmatma Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 01-03-2024 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bagengola P.S. Case No.32 of 2006 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section and 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

Allegation against this petitioner is to have caused firearms injury upon the informant.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted bail earlier by learned court below on 14.11.2008 and this petitioner is continuously absent since 14.12.2010 due

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13966 of 2024(2) dt.01-03-2024 2/2 to family problem as his wife Mina Devi was suffering from Cancer and her treatment was going on in Sir Sunder Lal Hospital Institute of Medical Science BHU, Varanasi. It is further submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and he is in custody since 16.01.2024.

5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6.

In view of the allegation and as the petitioner is absent since a long period and charge has already been framed and as nine prosecution witness has already been examined but further due to absence of this petitioner trial has no progress and also as sufficient cause as regard to absence for long term of the petitioner has not given, where, it appears that this a case of misuse of bail, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7.

Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, preferably, within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with cooperation of the petitioner. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) S.Katyayan/- U T