← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31099/2014rejected

Vikki Kamti @ Bikki Kamti v. The State Of Bihar

2015-01-12Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31099 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -574 Year- 2013 Thana -PURNEA SADAR District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Vikki Kamti @ Bikki Kamti S/o Radhe Kamti @ Radhe Kumar Choudhary resident of village- Shivshakti Nagar, Newalal Chowk, P.S.- Maranga, Distt.- Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner Vikki Kamti @ Bikki Kamti seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2014, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 574 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is the husband of the informant. There is allegation that the petitioner killed the mother of the informant by strangulating her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. One Chiranjeet Kumar Das disclosed the informant that her husband disclosed before him that he killed his mother-in-law. The petitioner is in jail for more than

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31099 of 2014 (3) dt.12-01-2015 one year.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has opposed the prayer for bail.

On perusal of record, it appears that Chiranjeet Kumar Das has made very specific allegation that it was the petitioner who strangulated his mother-in-law to death. The trial is at the fag end, since seven witnesses have already been examined. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T