Pappu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26721 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2018 Thana- BIHIA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== PAPPU SINGH Son of Madan Singh Resident of Village - Anar, P.S.- Bihiya, Distt.- Bhojpur (Ara).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the informant :

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the informant and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bihiya P.S. Case No. 206 of 2018, instituted for the offence under Section(s) 147, 341, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Bhojpur, Ara.

It is alleged in the written report that petitioner along with co-accused Dhumraj Singh Yadav caused fire arm injury to Ranjeet Bahadur @ Chhotka Kushwaha, on account of which, he died.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier there was land dispute between the parties for which the petitioner has filed Bihiya P.S. Case No. 256 of 2013 against Ranjeet

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26721 of 2019(5) dt.01-08-2019 2/2 Kushwaha @ Chhotka Kushwaha and others. He further submits that there is allegation that two persons fired, but in the post mortem report only one injury of firearm has been found. Learned counsel for the informant has appeared and opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that in the post mortem report there is two wound of exit which corroborates that two injuries were caused by firearms. He further submits that prayer for bail of co-accused Dhumraj Singh Yadav has already been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.4.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. 5186 of 2019. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the trial within a period of one year. In the event, the trial is not concluded within aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after one year.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T