Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31872/2015rejected

Bhikhari Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2015-11-05Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31872 of 2015 (3) dt.05-11-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31872 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -90 Year- 2007 Thana -BELSAND District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Bhikhari Manjhi Son of Late Etvari Manjhi resident of village - Jafarpur, P.S. Belsand, District - Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dinesh Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 05-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Belsand P.S. Case No. 90 of 2007 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly Prem Manjhi, the son of the informant was married to daughter of the petitioner and on 14.11.2007, Prem Manjhi had gone to the house of petitioner for Bidagari of his wife but he did not return till night of 18.11.2007. The informant went there and came to know that the petitioner has murdered his son and buried the dead body and thereafter the informant informed the matter to the P.S. concerned and in presence of the authority concerned, the dead body of Prem Manjhi was recovered.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31872 of 2015 (3) dt.05-11-2015 Submission is of false implication and that the witnesses are here-say. The petitioner cannot commit murder of his son-in-law and he is suffering in custody since 30.08.2014, having no criminal antecedent.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail at this stage by submitting that this is a case of 2007 and petitioner remained absconding since then.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, such prayer stands rejected.

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

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