Md. Alam Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47324 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2021 Thana- SINGHESHWAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Md. Alam Sah S/O Md. Bechan Sah @ Bechan Sah @ Md. Isfak Resident Of Village- Lalpur, Ward No. 02, P.S.- Singheshwar, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Nafisuzzoha with Ms. Rabia Gulnaz, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of brutally stabbing the knife upon the wife of the informant in her stomach and the accused persons were cutting her neck leading to her death.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that there is no any motive or intention to kill the wife of the informant. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 29.08.2021.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47324 of 2023(4) dt.06-11-2023 2/2

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for bail and submitted that informant is the husband of the deceased and eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. They submitted that the informant has stated that this petitioner is the main accused of the alleged occurrence. They further submitted that the Postmortem report corroborates the prosecution case with regard to the cause of death. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. From the perusal of the trial Court report, it appears that the prosecution evidence is examining continuously and the five prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

8. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T