Mannu Singh @ Mannu Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7791 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-482 Year-2016 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== MANNU SINGH @ MANNU KUMAR SINGH, Son of Kaushal Singh @ Kaushal Kishore Singh, Resident of Village- Rahatpur, P.S.- Ballia, DistrictBegusarai. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shantanu Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-08-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove all the defects as pointed out by office within four weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This is the fourth attempt of the petitioner to obtain regular bail in connection with Session Trial No. 22 of 2018 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 482 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned predecessor Bench vide order dated 26.02.2020 in Cr. Misc. No. 77542 of 2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He is in custody since 03.12.2016.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7791 of 2021(3) dt.05-08-2021 2/2 Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is still not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the reasons: (i) that according to the trial court's report out of eight witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined and cross examined and now only three witnesses are required to be examined (ii) while filing consecutive petition in this Court to obtain bail, the petitioner did not think it just and proper to enclose the statement of the prosecution witnesses who have deposed so far and (iii) that the allegation against the petitioner is that of commission of a serious offence of murder and he is said to be the main assailant.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused. Let the trial court proceed with the trial and make all endeavours to conclude it as early as possible with the opening of the physical court. The prosecution must cooperate in conclusion of trial. The application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.