Sahdeo Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11314 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -32 Year- 2016 Thana -VIDYAPATINAGAR District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Sahdeo Sah, Son of Late Juga Sah, Resident of Ward No.-16, Mahnar Chouri, P.S.-Mahnar, District-Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Mustaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-04-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. Petitioner, already in custody since 4.11.2017, seeks bail in Vidyapati Nagar PS Case No. 32 of 2016 (S.T. No. 812 of 2017) registered under Sections 302, 307, 120B/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The allegation in brief is that the petitioner killed son of the informant by shooting at him by fire arms.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to political rivalry the petitioner has been falsely implicated and during investigation the police also not found presence of mother and brother of the deceased at the place of occurrence, now seven prosecution witnesses out of fourteen have been examined and the independent witnesses have not supported the case. Whereas learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of killing the deceased, mother of the deceased and other eye witnesses have deposed before the trial court supporting the case, in any way the case is in the half way where most of the prosecution
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11314 of 2018 (5) dt.25-04-2018 witnesses have been examined and the petitioner has also large number of criminal antecedent.
Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and specific accusation against the petitioner as well as the trial is in progress so presently the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within a year.
(Arun Kumar, J) Snkumar/- U T