Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44654 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2024 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Chandan Kumar S/O Naresh Prasad Singh R/O Village-Noora, post-Hasadih, Thana-Hasadih, Distt-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 50337 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2024 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Pankaj Kumar Son Of Mithilesh Prasad Village- Hansadih, Ps- Masaurahi, Dist- Patna 2.

Abhishek Kumar @ Pintu Kumar Son Of Dinesh Prasad Village- Manichak, Ps- Masaurhi, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 44654 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mr Sikandar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP Mr. Anuj Kumar (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 50337 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Munni Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP Mr. Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-11-2024 Ref:- Cr. Misc. No. 44654 of 2024 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

2/4 Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 82 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the dead body of the deceased was found during investigation. The witnesses said that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have dispute with the deceased.

4. In the self-inculpatory statement, the co-accused Pankaj Kumar has confessed his guilt and said that the petitioner has participated in killing of the deceased along with Pankaj and others. They had strangulated the deceased to death. The postmortem report also supports the killing of the deceased by strangulation. Petitioner is in jail since 01.02.2024.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that the trial has started, and the prosecution has produced the one witness. There are seven charge-sheeted witness.

6. The learned counsel for the informant has undertaken to produce the witnesses on the date fixed in the trial so that the trial is not delayed.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is

3/4 rejected. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest. The Trial Court will not grant unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

Ref:- Cr. Misc. No. 50337 of 2024 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 82 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the dead body of the deceased was found during investigation. The witnesses said that the petitioners and other co-accused persons have dispute with the deceased.

4. In the self-inculpatory statement of the co-accused the petitioners have been named in this case. During investigation sufficient material has come to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence of committing murder of the deceased. They had strangulated the deceased to death. The post-mortem report also supports the killing of the deceased by strangulation. Petitioners are in jail since 01.02.2024.

4/4

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that the trial has started, and the prosecution has produced one witness. There are seven charge-sheeted witness.

6. The learned counsel for the informant has undertaken to produce the witnesses on the date fixed in the trial so that the trial is not delayed.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is rejected. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution then the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail.

8. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest. The Trial Court will not grant unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T