Sukhadi Singh Bhokta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58293 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2019 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Sukhadi Singh Bhokta S/o- Mohan Singh Bhokta Resident of VillageParsachua, P.S.- Roushanganj, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kr. II, Adv. with Mr. Gajendra Kr. Singh, Adv.

For the Informant/s :

Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sinha, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 28-09-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Roushanganj P.S. Case No. 188 of 2019 lodged under Sections 302, 120(B), 34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, the allegation is against the petitioner to attack on father of the informant by tangi. It has been claimed by the informant that he has seen the petitioner and others in the torch light.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that long pending land dispute is admitted by the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58293 of 2021(3) dt.28-09-2022 2/2 himself in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is man of clean antecedent and in custody since 06.04.2021, charge sheet has already been filed in this case. Upon specific query that charge has been framed or not, he submits that as per his knowledge, charge has not been framed till date. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the son of the deceased is informant and eye witness of this occurrence. He submits that in torch light he has seen the occurrence. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present and, therefore, his bail petition is hereby rejected but liberty is given to the petitioner to move for bail 3 months after framing of charge before the Trial Court and the Trial Court thereafter shall release the petitioner imposing the condition that he shall not evade during trial. Court below is also directed to expedite the trial.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U T