Sarjun Ram @ Bhaddu Ram @ Bhodu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 39603 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2020 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== SARJUN RAM @ BHADDU RAM @ BHODU RAM Son of Sudarshan Ram Resident of Village - Rajapur, P.S. - Rajpur, District - Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 19-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Rajpur Police Station (for brevity PS) Case No 176 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 302 of Indian Penal Code.

There is allegation that the informant's sister-in-law and his niece have gone to attend the call of nature and on the way, the sister-in-law has been taken away by the accused persons. She has subsequently been found dead near the pond in the village.

It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that out of 8 persons implicated, 7 have been absolved in the course of investigation itself. This clearly indicates towards falsity of the allegations and under such circumstances, the petitioner is in custody since 26.07.2020. It is further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39603 of 2020(3) dt.19-03-2021 2/2 submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and that it is a case of false implication as it has come in the course of investigation that this petitioner had warned the victim's niece that the victim should mend her ways.

The learned APP for the State has assisted the Court with reference to the material collected in the investigation. It is submitted that at paragraph 62 of the case diary, the fact has been taken note of that after the petitioner's arrest and on his statement, the firearm, which has been used in killing the victim, has been recovered. Further, it is submitted that there is strong motive against the petitioner and, as such, other than him, all others were absolved in the course of investigation. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is not inclined, for the present, to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.

This Court would, however, observe that the trial should proceed expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments or without any undue delay.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T