Trilochan Ray @ Ramlochan Ray @ Lochan Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2696 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2015 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
TRILOCHAN RAY @ RAMLOCHAN RAY @ LOCHAN RAY Son of Late Nagina Ray @ Late Ram Nagina Ray Resident of Village- Nakta Diyara, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna 2.
Chandeshar Ray @ Chandra Shekhar Ray Son of Late Nagina Ray @ Late Ram Nagina Ray Resident of Village- Nakta Diyara, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna 3.
Shivdutt Ray Son of Late Nagina Ray @ Late Ram Nagina Ray Resident of Village- Nakta Diyara, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna 4.
Gopichand Ray @ Gopichan Ray Son of Chandeshar Ray @ Chandra Shekhar Ray Resident of Village- Nakta Diyara, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna 5.
Rama Shankar Ray Son of Yadu Nandan Ray Resident of Village- Nakta Diyara, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna 6.
Chandeshwar Ray @ Chandra Shekhar Ray Son of Late Ratan Ray Resident of Village- Nakta Diyara, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna 7.
Rama Ray Son of Jay Ram Ray Resident of Village- Nakta Diyara, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Arvind Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard the parties.
Prosecution story is that the accused person came various armed and misbehaved with his wife and set the Palan on fire and fled away from there threatening the informant. It appears that earlier the appellants have moved before this Court for grant of bail but the same was permitted to be withdrawn as there are some defects. It further appears that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2696 of 2019(4) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 the case is of the year, 2015 and the appellants are named in the FIR.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no compromise has been reached between the parties and some of appellants are aged about 60 years and and some of them are aged about 70 years.
Heard learned A.P.P. also.
Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellants, however, this application is disposed of with direction to the appellants to surrender before the learned Special Judge and pray for regular bail which will be considered on the basis of materials available on the record and also considering the submission that compromise has been reached between the parties, considering the same prayer for bail of the appellants will be disposed of if possible on the same day. With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T