Vijay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18743 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2018 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== VIJAY SINGH Son of Late Lakhan Singh Resident of Village- Dharampur, P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Prakash, App ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) 22-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 342, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Earlier also, petitioner had moved this Court for grant of regular bail which was rejected vide Annexue 1. Informant has alleged in his written complaint that while he along with his father, cousin brother and nephew were going for Chatth Puja, FIR named accused surrounded them and there is specific allegation against Vijay Singh (petitioner) of causing firearm injury below right ear causing death which is corroborated by the postmortem report also.

Vide order dated 14.07.2021, a report was called from court below with regard to stage of trial. The report of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18743 of 2021(3) dt.22-09-2021 2/2 court below has come which is kept at Flag R in which it has been stated that charges has been framed against all six accused including the petitioner on 19.07.2019. All the unofficial charge-sheet witnesses including informant has been examined and out of two, one IO has been examined. Now case is pending for evidence of one IO and also for a doctor and prosecution has already been given direction to produce rest official witnesses but due to Covid-19 pandemic, no further proceeding has been done against rest official charge-sheet witnesses and the case is fixed on 09.08.2021 for prosecution evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the court below is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order and if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (S.