Jham Singh @ Binod Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.979 of 2016 (6) dt.03-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.979 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -116 Year- 2013 Thana -DINARA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Jham Singh @ Binod Singh S/o Rama Muni Singh, Resident of VillageBelwaiya, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-08-2017 The appellant seeks bail in connection with Dinara (Bhanas) P.S. Case No. 116 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 341, 342, 337, 338, 436, 506, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

Allegation against the appellant as per FIR is that petitioner and other co-accused persons came on the Darwaja of the informant and abused him and also assaulted him and his father due to which they sustained injuries causing death of his father.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is in custody for more than one year and some of the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution during the course of

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.979 of 2016 (6) dt.03-08-2017 investigation.

Heard learned Special P.P. He submitted that a report was called for from the trial court regarding stage of the trial and as per report received, it appears that this case is pending only for two witnesses in which S.I. has been examined in part and another is Doctor has not been examined.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. However, since the appellant is in custody for more than one year, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months. At the same time, S.P. and D.M., Rohtas is directed to see that the rest of the witnesses are examined within a period of one month.

With the above observation, this appeal is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) veena/- U T