Lal Bahadur Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2953 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2014 Thana -RAMGARHWA District- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Lal Bahadur Mukhiya S/o - Late Madhusudan Mukhiya R/o Village - Karkatwa, P.S.- Palanwa, District - East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K. Khare, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that he along with his family members and the accused persons went to the Civil Court, Motihari on 17.02.2014 for compromising the case but some altercations took place. The informant and his daughter-in-law came to Sugauli Platform and stayed there. Son of the informant, Angesh Mukhiya (the deceased) went along with the accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Mukhiya (the petitioner), Manoj Mukhiya and others to his village but his dead body was found on the railway track. It is submitted that there is a land dispute. The informant got the land transferred in the name of his daughter-in-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2953 of 2015 (3) dt.15-04-2015 2/2 law from his mother and that is the root cause of the dispute. There is no eye witness of the occurrence.

It appears that the petitioner and the accused persons were going to their house along with the deceased from Sugauli Railway Station but the petitioner did not explain about missing of the deceased Angesh Mukhiya and on the next day in the morning, the dead body of Angesh Mukhiya was found on the railway track. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt / production of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail firstly in the trial court.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T