Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34698/2024bail rejected

Bismillah Khan @ Bishmillah v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-12Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34698 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2021 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Bismillah Khan @ Bishmillah Son Of Md. Ishahaque @ Md. Ishahak VillagePakki Sarai Chowk Chandwara, Ps- Town, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.311/2022, arising out of Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.212/2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code & Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek regular bail as earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 29.04.2023 in Cr. Misc. No.67718/2022. It is next submitted that no doubt the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. appears to be heinous in nature but then the petitioner is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34698 of 2024(2) dt.12-07-2024 2/2 making any submission on merit, it is further submitted that the charges in the case was framed on 27.09.2022 and after framing of charge, not a single prosecution witness has appeared, which amply demonstrates that the informant is only interested in keeping the petitioner behind bars and the State is also not interested in prosecuting the petitioner. It is next submitted that charges have been framed on 27.09.2022 also stands recorded in the order impugned.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

5. The Court for the present is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

7. However, in the event, if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from today, in that event, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T