Pinku Kumar @ Sanjay Banerji @ Pinku Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35175 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2020 Thana- NAGARNAUSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Pinku Kumar @ Sanjay Banerji @ Pinku Prasad Son of Late Umakant Prasad @ Umakant Kumar R/O VILLAGE GILANI CHAK, P.S.- CHANDI, DISTRICT- NALANDA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shivanand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that he was riding a bicycle behind his brother, who was carrying asbestos on a bullock cart, it is next alleged that his brother was intercepted by petitioner and two unknown criminals, the criminals fired indiscriminately and the deceased was killed at the spot. It is further alleged that informant identified the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case on account of dispute relating to land. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2020 and out of nine charge

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35175 of 2024(2) dt.20-09-2024 2/3 sheet witnesses four witnesses have been examined. It is also submitted that in the event, if regular bail is granted to the petitioner the petitioner will not abscond, rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged in the FIR to be true without admitting then the informant does not specifically alleges that petitioner fired killing the deceased, but then it is fairly submitted that the deceased received 3-4 gun shot injuries.

4. The learned APP opposes the regular bail application and submits that trial has commenced and out of nine witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and the petitioner was identified by the informant who is brother of the deceased, as such it does not appear probable that being brother he would try to falsely implicates someone who was not involved in the killing of his brother, but then the learned APP fairly submits that since petitioner is in custody for nearly four years, the trial can be expedited.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from today, if possible. It is also made clear that if the trial is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35175 of 2024(2) dt.20-09-2024 3/3 concluded within the period aforesaid for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T