Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41094/2017rejected

Golu Prasad @ Golu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-01Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41094 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2015 Thana- MARANCHI District- Patna ====================================================== Golu Prasad @ Golu Kumar, Son of Sri Shyamali Singh , Resident of VillageRampur Dumra, P.S. -Maranchi, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Sri Amit Kumar Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Sri Madan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-11-2017 Heard Sri Amit Kumar Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madan Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is second attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier, prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 12.07.2016 vide Cr. Misc. No. 26740 of 2016. The petitioner is in custody in Maranchi P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 registered for the offence under Section 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. In the F.I.R. itself there was specific accusation against the petitioner regarding firing against husband of the informant. Considering the seriousness of accusation, prayer for bail was earlier rejected. However, by order dated 20.09.2017 a report was called for from the court below regarding the stage of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41094 of 2017(3) dt.01-11-2017 2/2 case, which has been received and kept at flag -'R'. The report dated 10th October , 2017 of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Barh, Patna makes it clear that on the date fixed for evidence while one witness was coming to court, he was murdered and this is the reason that despite the fact that charges have already been framed, witnesses have not been examined.

Considering the subsequent development as well as earlier rejection of prayer for bail on merit, there is no reason to review my earlier order.

The prayer for bail again stands rejected.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T