Jagnarayan Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32568 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-399 Year-2020 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== JAGNARAYAN MANJHI, S/o Late Belhar Manjhi, R/o Village-Hemanchak, P.S.-Naubatpur, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Madhukar Anand, Advocate For the State :

Ms.Meena Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Randhir Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 09-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 399 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that while the informant's husband and son were in a heated argument, the 7 accused persons under a misconception that they were yelling on them, have captivated the husband, son as well as son-in-law of the informant and indiscriminately assaulted them by various means, including knife. Son of informant has this sustained fatal injuries, leading to his death.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32568 of 2022(6) dt.09-02-2023 2/2 prosecution case, it is apparent that the offence has taken place on spur of the moment, though he denies the occurrence altogether. It is further submitted that the other two persons, who were allegedly also assaulted, have not sustained any injuries. The petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2020. Moreover, investigation is also complete. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. It is pointed out from the FIR that the instant petitioner and other accused persons are in fact agnates of the deceased. The specific injury leading to death of the victim has been assigned against the petitioner. The victim is 16 year old son of the informant.

It is also submitted that two out of four witnesses have already been examined and the trial now is only waiting for examination of the informant and I.O. of the case. Considering the rival submissions and the advanced stage of trial, this Court is not inclined, for the present, to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, this Court would record an expectation regarding trial being expedited, so as to ensure conclusion without any undue adjournments by the court, preferably within four months. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U T