Meraj @ Sanna @ Md. Meraj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31548 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2018 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== MERAJ @ SANNA @ MD. MERAJ, Son of Sahad Ansari, Resident of - Bakariya Tola, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shyamal Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 5/ 08-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Tr. No.519 of 2018 arising out of Alamganj P.S. Case No.98 of 2018 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna City, Patna.

It is alleged in the written report that on the date of occurrence this petitioner caused serious injury with Chaku to brother of the informant, Raj Kumar @ Vishnu and Shivam @ Golu. People arrived on halla, thereafter, all the persons fled away. Raj Kumar and Shivam were taken to NMCH, Hospital, where Raj Kumar died during course of treatment. Treatment of Shivam @ Golu was going on.

Counsel for State submits that witnesses in para 8 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31548 of 2019(5) dt.08-08-2019 2/2 17 have stated that this petitioner and other accused persons have caused injury to brother of the informant and Shivam. Learned APP has further submitted that other witnesses also in several paragraphs have levelled specific allegation against the petitioner of causing injury to brother of the informant and Shivam @ Golu.

Learned APP has further submitted that doctor has found injury on person of the deceased caused by sharp pointed weapon, which corroborate the allegation against petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected at this stage.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2018. Charges have already been framed. In view of such, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and make all efforts to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J) J. Alam/- U T