Hariram v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28374 of 2017 (2) dt.06-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28374 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2005 Thana -PIPRAHI District- SHEOHAR ======================================================

1. Hariram, son of Late Yogendra Ram, Resident of Village- Bairia, Police Station- Sheohar, Dist- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Mritunjay Kumar Nirala ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-07-2017 Heard Sri. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with Piprahi P.S. Case No. 62 of 2005 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to a labour class and could not surrender earlier in the present case though, the case is that of the year 2005. Petitioner has been arrested on 10.11.2016 by the police. Learned counsel refers some of the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of other accused and submits that the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail even though, there is some delay on his part in submitting himself to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28374 of 2017 (2) dt.06-07-2017 the jurisdiction of the Court.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. He refers the impugned order wherein, the learned First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sheohar has specifically referred some of the paragraphs of the case diary, showing that there is specific allegation against this petitioner that he had gouged out the eye of the victim Braj Kishore Singh.

Considering the serious nature of the allegation as also the conduct of the present petitioner in absconding for about 12 years and not allowing the trial to progress, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Now the petitioner has been arrested, let trial court proceed with trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.

The State through its public prosecutor is also directed to ensure presence of the witnesses on the date fixed in the matter.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) sushma/- U T