Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52069/2023rejected

Rahul Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2023-09-20Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52069 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-720 Year-2022 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rahul Thakur Son Of Rama Thakur Resident Of Village- Islampur, Ps- Riga, Distt- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that due to previous dispute and upon instigation of co-accused, namely Rama Thakur, the petitioner stabbed the deceased upon his chest due to which he sustained injuries caused by knife and thereafter the deceased was taken to hospital where doctor declared him dead. It is further alleged that accused persons also assaulted the informant by means of knife.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52069 of 2023(3) dt.20-09-2023 2/2 falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 14.03.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of stabbing due to which deceased sustained injury and died during treatment. The Postmortem Report also corroborated the prosecution version. During investigation, witnesses also supported the prosecution version.

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

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

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