Jay Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7728 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -258 Year- 2016 Thana -PURNEA SADAR District- PURNIA ====================================================== Jay Prakash Singh S/o Jagdish Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-03-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. case No. 258 of 2016 under Section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The case was lodged against unknown after recovery of the dead body. The father of deceased identified the dead body of his son, Ranjit Kumar.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer of petitioner for bail was earlier rejected vide order dated 19.10.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45206 of 2016. It is submitted that co-accused, Ganesh Singh, has already been granted bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44161 of 2016. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The mobile of deceased is said to have been recovered from the house of petitioner but the mobile was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7728 of 2017 (4) dt.20-03-2017 2/3 not put on T. I. parade and, therefore, there is no material to show involvement of the petitioner in the killing of Ranjit Kumar. It appears that it has come during the course of investigation from the father of the deceased that petitioner had suspicion that deceased had illicit relationship with his wife and that is why he confined Ranjit Kumar in a room for the whole night, brutally assaulted him, and thereafter his dead body was found. Surendra Singh disclosed that petitioner had kept the Zen mobile of the deceased and petitioner strangulated the deceased to death.

Considering the fact that it was the petitioner who had earlier confined the deceased, assaulted him, thereafter the dead body of deceased was found and mobile of the deceased was also recovered from the possession of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The court, in seisin of the case, is directed to commit the case to the Court of Sessions within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter the Session Judge or transferee court shall make efforts for conclusion of trial, holding the trial on day to day basis, within six months from the date of commitment of the case.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7728 of 2017 (4) dt.20-03-2017 3/3 The Superintendent of Police, Purnea is directed to ensure the attendance of prosecution witnesses of Sadar Muffasil P.S. case No. 258 of 2016 in the trial court so that the trial must be concluded within six months from the date of commitment. Let a copy of this order be sent to Superintendent of Police, Purnea for information and needful.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T