Akhilesh Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27814 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -331 Year- 2016 Thana -BARARI District- KATIHAR ====================================================== Akhilesh Mandal Son of late Binodi Mandal Resident of Village- Das Tola Bakiya Diyara, P.S Barari, District - Katihar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.30796 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -331 Year- 2016 Thana -BARARI District- KATIHAR ====================================================== Manoj Mandal, son of Dinesh Mandal, resident of Village- Das Tola Bakiya Diyara, P.S. Barari, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.27814 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta (In Cr.Misc. No.30796 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2017 Since both the cases arise out of the same P.S.case number they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The applications have been filed for bail in connection with Barari P.S.Case No. 331 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioners is that they have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27814 of 2017 (3) dt.18-07-2017 2/2 taken the deceased along with them and thereafter dead body of deceased was found.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that except suspicion there is nothing against the petitioners and they are in custody for five months and there is land dispute between the parties.

Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that in paragraph-17 of the case diary shows that just after the occurrence at 4 P.M. dead body was found and 1 P.M. the accused persons, including the petitioners have taken the deceased along with them.

Having heard both sides and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U