Raushan Singh @ Ramanuj Raman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41520 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2013 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ====================================================== RAUSHAN SINGH @ RAMANUJ RAMAN Son of Rajendra Singh Resident of Village - Rahatpur, P.S.- Balliya, Dist.- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate For the informant :

Mr. Hare Krishna Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 02-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the informant and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2019 arising out of Ballia P.S. Case No. 270 of 2013, instituted for the offence under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 326, 307, 302, 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions JudgeIX, Begusarai. It is alleged in the Fard-e-beyan that on the date of occurrence, on the order of co-accused Santosh Kumar, Raushan Singh (petitioner) fired on the chest of brother of the informant, on account of which, he fell down and subsequently died. Case diary has been received.

The informant is eye witness of the case. He has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41520 of 2019(4) dt.02-09-2019 2/2 supported the allegation in his re-statement. Post mortem report is available in the case diary wherein Doctor has found firearm injury on the chest of the deceased.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that other eye witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. This Court finds that as per Fard-e-beyan, the informant is eye witness. He is own brother of the deceased.

The informant has appeared and submitted that there is direct allegation of firing against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 16.7.2018.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. In the event, trial is not concluded within aforesaid period, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T