Amal Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24719 of 2020 Arising Out of PS Case No.-150 Year-2013 Thana- SHAHEBPUR KAMAL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Amal Rai, Male, aged about 26 years, Son of Sachidanand Rai @ Sachchidanand Ray, Resident of Village-Raghunathpur, PS-Shahebpur Kamal, District-Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with ` Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-02-2021 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Shahebpur Kamal PS Case No. 150 of 2013 dated 16.08.2013,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24719 of 2020 dt.24-02-2021 2/3 instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 04.12.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44329 of 2019.

4. The allegation against the petitioner along with six others is that he fired on the son of the informant leading to his death but specifically against the petitioner is of firing on the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted he has been falsely implicated due to past rivalry and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the place of occurrence. However, he submitted that the trial has advanced and the Court may direct it to be concluded expeditiously as out of ten prosecution witnesses, five have already been examined.

6. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have fired on the deceased which is corroborated by the postmortem report.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24719 of 2020 dt.24-02-2021 3/3

9. However, in view of many prosecution witnesses having been examined, let the Court below expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within one year from the date of production of a copy of this order. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T