Chunna Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26351 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -96 Year- 2013 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ======================================================

1. Chunna Singh son of Sri Aribind Singh, resident of village- Dholajor, P.S. Charkapatthar, Son o, District- Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-10-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 307 and 302 of the I.P.C and section 27 of the Arms Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he assaulted Sudhir Singh (deceased), the brother of the informant with spear on his head resulting later on he succumbed to the injury during treatment.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 22.02.2013. The deceased died during treatment. The petitioner, as alleged, has inflicted single blow and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26351 of 2015 (3) dt.09-10-2015 2/2 to which the learned A.P.P. seriously opposes by submitting that on the vital part the petitioner has given spear blow and in postmortem also the cause of death has been found as head injury. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, noticing that the petitioner is assailant and as such this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 541 of 2013 arising out of Sono (Charkapathar) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2013 pending in the court of A.D.J. 1st, Jamui. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within eight months. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T