Kashindar Mangraita @ Kashindra Mangraita v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54647 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -124 Year- 2014 Thana -BHAPATIYAHI District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Kashindar Mangraita @ Kashindra Mangraita Son of Soman Mangraita resident of Village & Police Station - Bhaptiyahi, District - Supaul. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anant Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2015, arising out of Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 124 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3970 of 2015 on 30.03.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The injured made his statement after four days of the occurrence in P.M.C.H., Patna. The supervisory authority doubted the veracity of statement of the injured.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54647 of 2015 (4) dt.18-05-2016 2/2 It appears that non-else the injured made very specific allegation when he regained his consciousness that, it was the petitioner who fired causing injury in his abdomen. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail at this stage in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2015, arising out of Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 124 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Supaul. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The petitioner is in jail since 07.10.2014, the trial court is directed to hold the trial on day-to-day basis and conclude the same positively within six months. If the trial is not concluded within stipulated time, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

The Superintendent of Police, Supaul also directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses so that the trial must be concluded within six months.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T