Bipin Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18025 of 2016 (4) dt.24-06-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18025 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -97 Year- 2015 Thana -SARMERA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Bipin Yadav Son of Late Mahendra Yadav, Resident of Village - Isua Tola Paschim Beldaria, P.S. - Sarmera, District - Nalanda. .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Naushad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kr.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 97 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 302, 447, 337, 338/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the first information report the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he gave fatal brick blow on the chest of the father-in-law of the informant causing his death. Submission is of false implication and that the occurrence has taken place due to land dispute, there was no intention to commit murder, the occurrence has taken place at the spur of moment and during investigation the informant Shyama Devi in her further statement has not stated specifically, some of co-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18025 of 2016 (4) dt.24-06-2016 accused have been allowed pre-arrest bail, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 21.11.2015 and as such the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes by submitting that other witnesses have also specifically stated that the petitioner gave fatal brick blow on the chest of the father-inlaw of the informant causing his death and the post mortem report also corroborates the same.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after taking all positive steps, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T