Md. Izarail @ Ajjo @ Md. Ajjo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1989 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2017 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul ====================================================== MD. IZARAIL @ AJJO @ MD. AJJO S/O LATE BIRKHA MIAN @ MD. BIRKHA R/O Village- Majhani, P.S- Nirmali, Distt.- Supaul. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Arjun Prasad Mehta S/O Bhola Prasad Mehta R/O Village- Manjhari, P.SNirmali, Distt.- Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Ms. Soni Srivastava, Adv.

Mr. Ratanakar Jha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 30-11-2023 Though notice has been issued to O.P. No. 2, no one has turned up to assist the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 2.3.2023 passed by learned Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge 1st, Supaul whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(ii) of the SC/ST Act was rejected.

As per allegation in the FIR, four known and two unknown persons on two motorcycles started indiscriminate

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1989 of 2023(6) dt.30-11-2023 2/3 firing upon the informant and Shiv Shankar Sharma as a result of which both have received gunshot injuries. It is further alleged that petitioner hit the informant in his ribcage as well as wrist of Shiv Shankar Sharma. .

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. He has not taken the cast name of the informant in public view. As per progress report sent by trial court, charge has not been framed as yet and there is no hope to conclude the trial in near future. No offence is made out under the provisions of the SC/ST Act against the petitioner. Appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 17.09.2021.

The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P. for the State and and submitted that specific allegation of opening fire is against the petitioner. During investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Injury report also corroborates the prosecution case. It is further submitted that appellant is habitual offender and huge number of criminal cases are pending against him.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant and, as such, his

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1989 of 2023(6) dt.30-11-2023 3/3 prayer for bail stands rejected.

The appeal stands disposed off.

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within six months, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U