Bare Lal Murmu v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32018 of 2015 (4) dt.06-11-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32018 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -90 Year- 2005 Thana -SANGRAMPUR District- MUNGER ======================================================

1. Bare Lal Murmu son of Late Budhu Murmu, resident of village Dangra, P.S. Sangrampur (Teliya Bambar O.P.), District- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 90 of 2005 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioner and other co-accused killed Salgi Devi the sister of the informant alleging her witch and threw the dead body near the forest and further made the dead body traceless when the informant went to inform the Police. Submission is of false implication and that in this case other co-accused have faced trial vide Sessions Trial No. 617 of 2007 and they have been acquitted. There is no eye witness in this case. Other co-accused have been granted bail by learned Sessions

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32018 of 2015 (4) dt.06-11-2015 Judge, Munger vide B. A. No. 568 of 2007 dated 13.06.2007 and the petitioner being poor had gone outside the State to earn his livelihood resulting he has been declared absconder and his case has been separated from the original case. The petitioner has voluntarily surrendered on 13.04.2015 and since then he is in custody.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner remained absconder since long. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the period of abscondance, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his payer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T