Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23953/2017dismissed

Bijay Yadav @ Bijal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-18Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23953 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -656 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ======================================================

1. Bijay Yadav @ Bijal Yadav S/o Raso Yadav R/o Village- Kabira, P.S.- Salkhua, District-Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 656 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons is of firing on the informant.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the course of investigation, witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and has not identified this petitioner as an assailant. Further there was illicit relationship of the informant with wife of one Hare Ram Yadav, due to which the present occurrence took place. He has been in judicial custody since 20.03.2017.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23953 of 2017 (3) dt.18-07-2017 2/2 Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that there is direct allegation against the petitioner is of firing on the informant.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the injury caused to the informant was found to be grievous in nature, as such, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, his application for regular bail is accordingly, rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of seven 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 below itself, which will be considered by the court below on the basis of materials available on record.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T