Jaimal Paswan @ Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22512 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2018 Thana- KARAI PARSURAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== JAIMAL PASWAN @ PANDIT Son of Late Arjun Paswan @ Firangi Paswan Resident of Village - Salempur (Binsa), P.S.- Karai Parsurai, District - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Karai Parsurai P.S. Case No. 117/2018, instituted for offence under Section(s) 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of Arms Act. Later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. It is alleged in the written report that on the date of occurrence father of informant was going with this petitioner and other co-accused. In the meantime, the accused persons shot fire on the father of informant causing firearm injury in his back. Reason behind the occurrence is that father of informant was close friend of Manjhi Ramani. Some altercation had taken place between them.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22512 of 2019(4) dt.05-07-2019 2/2 Case diary has been received.

Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that police has recorded statement of injured prior to his death, which is mentioned in para 16 of case diary, wherein deceased has alleged that petitioner had fired shot in his back. Father of informant subsequently died in the emergency ward of P.M.C.H. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that informant in his further fardbeyan, after death of his father, has not stated this fact.

Post-mortem report is available in case diary, wherein doctor has found firearm injury on the person of deceased. Considering the direct allegation made by injured himself against this petitioner, who subsequently died, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Petitioner is given liberty to renew prayer for bail after nine months in the event no substantive progress is made in trial.

(Sanjay Priya, J) rakhi/- U T