Guddu Munim @ Munim Guddu @ Rustam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8146 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2012 Thana -BAHADURPUR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Guddu Munim @ Munim Guddu @ Rustam S/o Salim Miyan, Resident of At Karbala, P.S. Sultanganj, Distt- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 8 of 2012, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The wife of the deceased alleged that she heard sound of firing and came out from her house and saw her husband lying injured on the ground. The petitioner was waiving his pistol and saying her husband had earlier got him arrested and that is why he was killed. She further alleged that one Md. Azam was also injured in the firing. The informant disclosed that the petitioner and his father-in-law were at the place of occurrence.

Shri Yogesh Chandra Verma, the learned Sr. counsel submits that the informant in her further statement disclosed that besides the petitioner 2-3 more persons were there. There is no witness

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8146 of 2015 (3) dt.01-04-2015 2/2 to say that it was the petitioner who fired. The deceased got single firearm injury.

It appears that immediately after the occurrence the informant came out from her house and saw this petitioner waiving pistol in his hand and saying that it was the result of his being arrested at the instance of the deceased. Two persons were killed and petitioner and his father-in-law were there. According to the first version of the informant there was no other version. The petitioner has got criminal antecedent and he is accused in two other murder cases besides other criminal cases.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and must conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The S.S.P., Patna is also directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses during the course of trial on day-to-day basis so the trial be concluded within time. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the S.S.P., Patna.

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