Naresh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29781 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2020 Thana- HARINMAR District- Munger ====================================================== NARESH PASWAN Son of Late Baijnath Paswan Resident of VillageAthsaihiya, Police Station- Harinmar, District- Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surya Narayan Sah, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-03-2022 Heard the parties.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Harinmar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution story, in brief, is that one Bimla Devi gave her fardbeyan that her son Mantu Singh had accompanied the present petitioner and did not return back to home. On search, she was informed that the dead body of her son is lying in the field of Dinesh Kumar Singh. Murder has been committed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29781 of 2021(6) dt.30-03-2022 2/2 by means of a sharp cutting weapon. Injury is on the left side of the head. In course of investigation, it has come that due to previous enmity, the petitioner hatched a conspiracy along with another co-accused named in the F.I.R. which is supported by the CDR report. Petitioner has made several calls on the mobile number of the deceased Mantu Singh. In course of investigation, there are substantial materials which have been collected against the petitioner, prima facie, supports the allegation made in the F.I.R.

Considering the seriousness of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously well within a period of six months considering the period of custody of the petitioner.

If no substantial progress takes place in the trial within the aforesaid period, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T