Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42226/2016rejected

Babu Sahib @ Babu Saheb Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-12-20Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42226 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -215 Year- 2015 Thana -AMARPUR District- BANKA ====================================================== 1.

Babu Sahib @ Babu Saheb Singh Son of Sri Nityanand Singh @ Nityananand Singh Resident of village- Kathail, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in custody in connection with S.T. No.66 of 2016, arising out of Amarpur P.S. Case No. 215 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/307/324/384/386/302/379 of the Indian Penal Code. About 10-12 criminals came by vehicle and started indiscriminate firing. Four persons sustained fire-arm injury, out of whom two died during the course of treatment. The informant is eyewitness of the occurrence. Among the miscreants four persons were identified by the informant including the petitioner. The two injured also claims to have identified the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42226 of 2016 (3) dt.20-12-2016 2/2 petitioner and others in their statement before the police. Submission of the petitioner is that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2015 and has got no criminal antecedent. Contention of the State is that the allegation is of indiscriminate firing, hence, it was difficult for the witnesses to identify as to whose shot hit to whom.

Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bail prayer of the petitioner is refused. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. If the trial is not concluded within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner may renew the prayer for bail.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T