Manoj Uraon v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9376 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -498 Year- 2017 Thana -BAGHA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================
1. Manoj Uraon, S/o Ramnath Uraon, R/o Village- Madarahni, P.S.- Bagaha (Bhairoganj), District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kanhaiya Kishore, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner is alleged to have given dagger blow at the stomach of the father of the informant, as a result whereof, he died. The FIR would reveal that the informant came at the place of occurrence which was near the house of Hari Uraon on the call of Hari Uraon and thereafter the victim disclosed that the petitioner had given him dagger blow. Hari Uraon has also stated before the police that the victim disclosed that this petitioner had given dagger blow. Three unknown persons were also there and Hari Uraon stated that one Vijay Uraon had also assaulted to the victim.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9376 of 2018 (3) dt.28-03-2018 Contention is that it is highly improbable that in such condition of injury, the victim would make statement.
Considering the prima facie material, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present in connection with Bagaha (Bhairoganj) Police Station Case No. 498 of 2017 pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha, West Champaran/successor court.
Hence, prayer for bail is refused.
The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court itself.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- U T