Pyare Bind v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30641 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2017 Thana -CHAINPUR District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================

1. Pyare Bind, son of Late Lala Bind, resident of Village- Baheriya, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramdev Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ramchandra Sahani For the informant ; Mr. Vivekanand Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 03 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner that he along with other co-accused person killed the deceased.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner's name transpired in this case only on the confessional statement of co-accused and except that there is nothing against the petitioner. Further the main allegation is against the coaccused of this case, namely, Sudhar Yadav. It has also been submitted that there was love affair between the deceased and the niece of the co-accused, for which the deceased might have been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30641 of 2017 (3) dt.24-07-2017 2/2 killed. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.04.2017. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant. They have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are sufficient materials available on record, showing involvement of this petitioner. Further the prayer for bail of other co-accused persons against whom there was similar allegation, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20019 of 2017. Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail 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 nine months as was directed in the case of other two accused persons. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T