Sunil Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14205 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -78 Year- 2013 Thana -TARIYANI CHOWK District- SHEOHAR ====================================================== Sunil Rai, S/o - Sri Ram Balak Rai, R/o Vill - Math Masauli, P.S. - Tariyani, Distt. - Sheohar.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Allegedly, the petitioner and other F.I.R. named accused persons, being armed with rifle, gun and lathi, were engaged in cutting Simal tree and when the informant and his nephew forbade them then co-accused Ram Balak Rai gave order to shoot whereupon the elder son of Ram Balak Rai (petitioner) after taking rifle from the hand of Santosh Rai opened indiscriminate firing upon the nephew of the informant with an intention to kill him and again co-accused Subodh Rai also opened fire hitting the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14205 of 2016 (3) dt.17-05-2016 2/2 chest of the nephew of the informant, who succumbed to the injury.
Submission is of false implication and that assailant is Subodh Rai, other co-accused Ram Balak Rai has been allowed bail and further Santosh Rai has been allowed pre-arrest bail and as such the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration as he is in custody for more than a year.
The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that in further statement, the informant has stated the name of the petitioner that he also opened fire on deceased Raman Kumar and postmortem report also corroborates the allegation. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Tariyani P.S. Case No.78 of 2013 pending in the court of C.J.M., Sheohar. Considering the detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) N.H./- U T