Sandeep Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47282 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-362 Year-2022 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sandeep Paswan Son Of Hari Charan Paswan @ Bhaduri Paswan Resident Of Village- Ganeshpur, P.S. Chenari, District- Rohtas At Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-08-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect (s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks on resumption of physical mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

3. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Chenari P.S Case No. 362 of 2022 dated 06.12.2022 registered for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed murder of the minor son of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47282 of 2023(2) dt.03-08-2023 2/2 this case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. There is no eye witness of the said occurrence. The petitioner is son-in-law of the informant. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2022.

6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged about 5 years.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the specific allegation of heinous nature of offence against the petitioner and finding no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge this petitioner above-named on bail.

8. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within 9 months. However, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

9. The bail petition stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T