Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39314/2016rejected

Chandan Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2016-10-22Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39314 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -256 Year- 2014 Thana -SIWAN CITY District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Chandan Chaudhary Son of Late Laxman chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla - Dakshin Tola, Police Station - Siwan Town, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in S.T. No.438 of 2014, arising out of Siwan Town P.S. Case No.256 of 2014 instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation has been made that victim has been killed by some unknown persons. During investigation it transpires that it is the petitioner who has fired from close range. Occurrence has taken place on account of land dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the order of this Court in which one Aklakh Ahmad has been granted bail vide Cr. Misc.No. 14564 of 2016. He has very

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39314 of 2016 (3) dt.22-10-2016 fairly submitted that in the present case two witnesses have already been examined.

From the case diary it appears that petitioner is member of group of Ladan Miyan who is also accused in this case. In paragraph 3 of the petition it has been stated that petitioner carries three cases over his head. Looking to the nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected. However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial within nine months from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U T