Karoo Singh @ Navin Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31760 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2018 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== KAROO SINGH @ NAVIN SINGH Son of Late Anurag Singh Resident of Village - Dharmpura, P.S.- Rajgir, District - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP For the Informant : Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 342, 307 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail. Earlier vide order dated 30.08.2019 this Court has refused the prayer for bail with a direction to the learned Court below to conclude the trial within one year.

Vide order dated 02.12.2020, a report was called for from the learned Court below regarding the stage of the trial. In compliance thereof, the learned Court below vide letter no.214 dated 15.12.2020 has reported that out of nine witnesses four witnesses has been examined by the prosecution and for the rest five witnesses summons have been issued and the case is fixed for evidence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31760 of 2020(3) dt.19-01-2021 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute and enmity. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 16.11.2018. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is specific allegation upon the petitioner of firing by means of country made pistol upon Sanjeev Kumar, which hit on his neck and he succumbed to firearm injury.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

However, learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Both the parties are expected to extend their co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T