Tallu Soren v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49748 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2021 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia ====================================================== Tallu Soren son of Bablu Soren Village- Brahmgyani Ps- Bhawanipur DistPurnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dt. 20.09.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14524 of 2023 with a direction to trial court to expedite and conclude the trial.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, while the informant was returning from his sister's house with Sanjay Kumar and on the way, five miscreants surrounded them and on order of Sumit Kumar Tuddu, petitioner fired upon Sanjay Kumar which hit in his belly and informant received gun-shot injury on his hand. Sanjay Kumar was brought dead to hospital. Prior to the occurrence, petitioner had threatened the informant of dire consequences.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner h as been falsely been implicated in this case. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49748 of 2024(2) dt.12-07-2024 2/2 mentioned in para 14 of the petition that informant was examined as P.W.-1 and he totally denied the occurrence and not supported the prosecution case.

5. It is further submitted that out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only 11 witnesses were examined till date. There is no hope to conclude the trial in near future. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 5.5.2022.

6. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in connection with S.T. No. 526/2023 arising out of Barhara P.S. Case No. 223 of 2021.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U