Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34271/2017dismissed

Pal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-26Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34271 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -7 Year- 2017 Thana -DHANGAI District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Pal Singh, Son of Late Matha Singh @ Ram Nath Singh, Resident of Village Dalipur, Police Station Dhangai, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. K. N. Chaubey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyendra Prasad For informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 07 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Section 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that only general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against him and further there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and he has been in judicial custody since 16.02.2017.

Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that one witness has named this petitioner and claims herself to be the eyewitness. Moreover, other co-accused of this case has also come for grant of regular bail, which was dismissed vide order dated

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34271 of 2017 (2) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 24.06.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29270 of 2017 and vide order dated 25.07.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 30162 of 2017 with an observation that they may renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at present, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, as directed in the above two orders, the petitioner shall also renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge in this case.

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