Rambabu Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14661 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-327 Year-2023 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAMBABU RAY, SON OF BINDESHWAR RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHHAPRA AAS, BHADINPUR, P.S.- PAROO, DISTRICTMUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pravan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate Mr. Bhubneshwar Mahto, Advocate Ms. Kumari Rupa, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.964 of 2023, arising out of Paroo P.S. Case no. 327 of 2023 registered under sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 342, 147, 148 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the accused persons including the petitioner herein came variously armed. The petitioner who was armed with a sword along with others is said to have assaulted the informant and his family members. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner assaulted his son Mantosh Kumar with a sword in his chest leading to his death.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14661 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of enmity between the parties. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The allegations so far as this petitioner is concerned are not substantiated in course of investigation. The petitioner was taken into custody from his house on 26.7.2023 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR wherein the petitioner, who is said to be armed with a sword, is said to be the assailant of the deceased son of the informant namely Mantosh Kumar and the said allegation having been corroborated from the contents of the postmortem report, contents of which find mention in the order of the learned trial Court, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T