Satendra Uraon v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6571 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -38 Year- 2014 Thana -SIMRA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Satendra Uraon Son of Prabhu Uraon Resident of Kataha Belahwa, P.S. - Semara (Chiutaha), Dist.-West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. C.Jawahar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C Allegedly, Bansraj Uraon, the son of the informant, after receiving call on the mobile went out of the house after leaving meal but he did not return and on 03.06.2014 in the morning the dead body of Bansraj Uraon was found in the maize field. Suspicion was raised against Kishun Uraon and Indua Devi. During investigation on the basis of the call detail report the petitioner was apprehended and he confessed his guilt stating involvement of wife of the deceased also in the conspiracy and further on the basis of his confessional statement axe used in the crime was recovered and further the wife of the deceased also confessed her guilt.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6571 of 2015 (5) dt.03-05-2016 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that there is no legal and tangible material against the petitioner, only on the basis of the confessional statement, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 05.06.2014 having no criminal antecedent, no one has seen the petitioner killing the deceased and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. It is also submitted that in the Forensic Science Laboratory Report also nothing has come. The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for bail by submitting that on the basis of the call detail report the petitioner was apprehended and he confessed his guilt and further on the basis of his disclosure axe used in the crime was also recovered. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, at this stage I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with S.Tr. No. 709 of 2014 arising out of Semra (Chiutaha) P.S. Case No. 38 of 2014 pending in the court of Adhoc A.D.J. 1st, Bagaha, West Champaran.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T