Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15958/2023rejected

Binod Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-01Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15958 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2022 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== BINOD SINGH Son of Harimohan Singh R/V- Pandeypur, PS-Baniapur, Dist- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 01-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of brutally assaulting the grand-father of the informant leading to his death.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. The allegation of killing the deceased is against three persons namely petitioner, co-accused Dinesh Mahto and Harimohan Singh. There is no specific overt against the petitioner. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 14.07.2022.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15958 of 2023(4) dt.01-08-2023 2/2

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that there is specific overt act of assaulting against the petitioner along with others. As per Postmortem report, it appears that the death was caused by hard and blunt substance, which corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within nine months because the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 14.07.2022, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T