Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34839/2014dismissed

Ajay Ray @ Panditwa v. The State Of Bihar

2015-01-19Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34839 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -85 Year- 2010 Thana -RAGHOPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Ajay Ray @ Panditwa S/o Indra Bhushan Prasad R/o Village Hasanpur, P.S. Kadirganj, District Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in Raghopur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2010 registered under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

Eight persons including the petitioner are named in the first information report and alleged that they indiscriminately fired which hit Raj Kumar Ray the brother of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police came at the place of occurrence at about 8.30 and inquest was prepared. The I.O. has stated that he tried to take the statement of mother of the deceased but the family member after having consultation with each other Dinkar Kumar made

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34839 of 2014 (3) dt.19-01-2015 2/2 fardbeyan on the basis of which first information report was registered. It appears that the informant has made very specific allegation that all the eight accused persons made indiscriminate firing causing the death of Raj Kumar Ray. The postmortem report shows that many firearm injuries are found on the body of the deceased.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

It is submitted that the case has already been committed to the court of sessions. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as the petitioner is in jail since 09.10.2013. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated time, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail firstly before the trial court.

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