Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48200/2016rejected

Babloo Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-20Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48200 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -118 Year- 2014 Thana -GUTHNI District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Babloo Rai S/o Jagdish Rai resident of Village and Post- Nainijor, P.S.- Guthani, District- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 349 of the Indian Penal Code, later on Section 302 was added in connection with Guthani P.S. Case No. 118/2014.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though there is allegation against this petitioner that he assaulted the son of the informant by Gupti. During course of investigation, it has come that firstly one Sudhakar Sharma assaulted the son of the informant and thereafter this petitioner also assaulted. Sudhakar Sharma has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.08.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31716/2015 and the petitioner is in custody for about eight months.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48200 of 2016 (3) dt.20-01-2017 2/2 Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor also. He opposed the prayer of bail and stated that from the FIR itself it appears that the petitioner assaulted the son of the informant in the right side of the abdomen and due to which he succumbed to injury. Having heard both sides, in view of the facts, stated above, and as there is allegation that the petitioner assaulted the son of the informant who succumbed to injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.) Rakhi U T