Kamlesh Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11937 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -114 Year- 2015 Thana -PARASBIGHA District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Kamlesh Chaudhary, son of Butai Chaudhary, resident of Village- Godiha, Police Station- Parasbigha in the district of Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murlidhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 208 of 2016/35 of 2016, arising out of Parasbigha P.S.Case No. 114 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 325, 326, 498A and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the case is under Section 304B and other sections of IPC and allegation against the petitioner and others is of cutting the neck of the deceased by sharp cutting weapon and there are other injuries also on the body of the deceased.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as a matter of fact, deceased received such injuries by hand pump

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11937 of 2017 (4) dt.13-04-2017 2/2 while she was fetching water from the hand pump and petitioner has taken the deceased to emergency ward of the PMCH and he is in custody since 21.11.2015.

Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that not only one injury but five other injuries were found on the person of the deceased, which is evident from post mortem report.

Having heard both sides and in view of the allegation, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in custody for more than one year and, as submitted, charge has been framed in this case, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U