Prakash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41420 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -169 Year- 2015 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Prakash Kumar, son of Late Bharat Sah, resident of Mohalla- Nai Bazar Yadupatti Road, Police Station- Town, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.N.Thakur(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Allegation against the petitioner is to have fired shot at the son of the informant, who succumbed to his injury during treatment.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody since 16.3.2015. Chargesheet has been submitted in the present case. There is no allegation of tampering of evidence against the petitioner. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Petitioner has been named on the basis of declaration made by the deceased to the informant before his death. Subsequently, in the re-statement informant has named one more person, namely, Belua also, who is said to have fired upon the deceased along with the petitioner. Except for the said evidence, there is no other circumstantial evidence to support the declaration made by the deceased.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41420 of 2015 (3) dt.30-10-2015 2 / 2 On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and declaration made by the deceased is dying declaration where petitioner is named. As far as petitioner is concerned, there is consistent evidence made by the prosecution witnesses that the accused also fired upon the deceased. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, same is rejected. Any how, learned court below, i.e., 10th Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, is directed to take all necessary steps to expedite the trial in connection with Town P. S. Case no. 169 of 2015, G.R. no. 967 of 2015 and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) sudip/- U T