Mahil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37648 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2019 Thana- BANSHI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== MAHIL YADAV Son of Ramesh Yadav Resident of Village- Sonbhadra Mathiya P.S. Banshi District- Arwal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Paras Nath For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Banshi P.S. Case No. 12/2019, instituted for offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.

It is alleged in the written report that on the date of occurrence while son of informant was returning to his house after purchasing some articles and reached near Devi Sthan, petitioner along with other named accused persons assaulted him with Lathidanda. On alarm nearby people came there. Thereafter informant reached there and found his son was lying on the ground after sustaining head injury and blood was oozing.

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that one of the co-accused has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37648 of 2019(5) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46211/2019.

From perusal of para 26 and 27 of case diary it appears that witnesses have taken name of this petitioner along with other accused persons.

Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that one of the coaccused has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench showing single injury. But on perusal of post-mortem report it appears that son of informant had sustained several injuries. In view of such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected. Petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2019.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew the prayer of bail in the event trial is not concluded within aforesaid period. (Sanjay Priya, J) rakhi/- U T