Mahanand Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6855 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -255 Year- 2014 Thana -NARPATGANJ District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Mahanand Yadav son of Late Umedha Lal Yadav Resident of Village Barhara, P.S. Narpatganj, District- Araria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 Heard both sides The petitioners seek bail in Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 255 of 2014 registered under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37544/2015. It is submitted that the prayer for bail Ram Prasad Yadav, who is alleged to have pierced spear in the abdomen of the deceased, has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.01.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47649/2015. It appears that the case of the petitioner is different from the case of co-accused Ram Prasad Yadav. Petitioner Mahanand Yadav is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with Farsa on his head and the injuries found on the head appears to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6855 of 2016 (3) dt.13-07-2016 2/2 have caused the death of the deceased.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 255 of 2014. Accordingly, the same is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial holding the same on day-to-day basis and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The Superintendent of Police, Araria is directed to ensure attendance of the prosecution witnesses of Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 255 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 1910/14, S.T. No. 626/15, so that the trial must be concluded within the aforesaid period of six months.

If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail firstly in the trial court itself.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T