← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41085/2018dismissed

Bacchan Rajbhar @ Bacchan Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2018-09-25Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41085 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2018 Thana -ITADHI District- BUXAR ======================================================

1. Bacchan Rajbhar @ Bacchan Ray, Son of Late Banjhu Rajbhar, Resident of Village- Karanjuwa, Dera, P.S.- Itarhi, District- Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-09-2018 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Itarhi P.S.Case nO.62 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the IPC has been added on 23.3.2018.. Allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is that the petitioner along with the other accused persons woke up the father of the informant and took him to the grocery shop and on protest, the petitioner fired on his father which hit on the waist and he fell down and they looted the articles of worth Rs.25,000/-. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no eye witness of the firing by the petitioner to the deceased and there is land dispute between the parties from before,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41085 of 2018 (3) dt.25-09-2018 2/2 as such he has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is in custody since 3.4.2018.

Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, a such the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the commitment of the case and after commitment, expedite the trial of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T