Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50940/2014rejected

Ranjan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2015-08-12Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50940 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -72 Year- 2014 Thana -SHAHPUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Ranjan Prasad, Son of Bhagwan Prasad, Resident of Village - Usari Khurda, Kothiya, P.S.- Shahpur, District -Patna at present residing at Village - Chhitnawa, P.S.- Maner, District -Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dinesh Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 12-08-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Shahpur P.S. Case No.72/2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown. The name of the petitioner has appeared merely on suspicion. During investigation, some pieces of bloodstained bamboo were recovered from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2014, but he has not been put on T.I. Parade. From perusal of the F.S.L. report, it appears from item no.1 that gauze piece cuttings blood could not be detected and could not be determined as human blood.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50940 of 2014 (11) dt.12-08-2015 2/2 The learned counsel for the State submits that although the case was lodged against unknown, but the involvement of the petitioner appeared during investigation. Some pieces of bloodstained bamboo were recovered and seized from the house of the petitioner. The F.S.L. report has been called for from which it appears that out of four items, in three items, human blood have been found and there is ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner is facing trial. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. His prayer for bail is rejected.

Let the trial be expedited.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) V.K. Pandey/- U T