Nathuni Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.947 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -65 Year- 2016 Thana -CHANPATIA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Nathuni Sah S/O Lal Parikha Sah, Resident of Village-Siswania, P.S.- Cahpatia, District- West Champaran .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar , Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Sadanand Paswan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-11-2016 The appellant is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 342, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. He is aggrieved by an order dated 26.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bettiah, West Champaran whereby his application for grant of regular bail has been rejected.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that though there is specific allegation of killing the deceased against one Bullet Sah, there is no such allegation against this appellant.
I have seen the First Information Report. There is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.947 of 2016 (2) dt.28-11-2016 2/2 allegation of active participation against the appellant in killing of the deceased. I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bettiah, West Champaran whereby the appellant's application for regular bail has been rejected. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
Considering the fact that the appellant has remained in custody since 15.05.2016 and chargesheet has already been submitted, the Court observes that trial of the case must be expedited and concluded preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of the present order. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U T