Ram Pukar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33811 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2018 Thana- HAYAGHAT District- Darbhanga ====================================================== RAM PUKAR YADAV Son of Late Dorai Yadav @ Dhodhai Yadav Resident of Village - Akraha, P.S.- Hayaghat, Distt - Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 08-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 102 of 2018, instituted for the offence under Section(s) 302/34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga.

It is alleged in the written report that on the date of occurrence, dispute took place between petitioner and son of the informant for cutting Shisham tree. It is further alleged that son of the informant told that matter will be settled by Panchayat but petitioner did not agree and assaulted the son of the informant with Bamboo Stick on his head, on account of which, he fell down and died on the spot.

Case diary has been received.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33811 of 2019(3) dt.08-08-2019 2/2 The post mortem report is available in the case diary wherein the Doctor has found one injury on the head of the deceased. There was fracture in left side of frontal and parietal bone.

From the written report it appears that petitioner is own uncle of the deceased. There is direct allegation against the petitioner of assault to the deceased.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order. In the event the trial is not concluded within aforesaid period, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after nine months.

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