Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7656/2017dismissed

Chunmun Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-18Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7656 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -189 Year- 2016 Thana -RIVILGANJ District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Chunmun Yadav, Son of Sri Kanhaiya Yadav, Resident of VillageBhadpa, P.S.- Rivilganj, District- Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav No-1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2017 The petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2016 in connection with Revilganj P.S. Case No. 189 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 34 and 302 of Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against this petitioner. Further later on it has been alleged that petitioner has assaulted by Salai Wrench and he has been in custody since 24.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that two injuries were found on the deceased and that too on the head and it is alleged that petitioner and other coaccused have assaulted the deceased.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7656 of 2017 (4) dt.18-03-2017 2/2 Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that there is direct allegation of assault against the petitioner that has been supported by the postmortem report, as such, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of regular bail, it is accordingly rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of six months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself, which will be considered by the court below on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T