Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50902/2019rejected

Amit Bind v. The State Of Bihar

2019-12-17Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50902 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2019 Thana- KHARHAGPUR District- Munger ====================================================== AMIT BIND Son of Prakash Bind Resident of Village - Barui, P.S.- Kharagpur, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Khargpur P.S. Case No. 02 of 2019 registered under sections 304(B), 34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Munger.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2019. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that there is direct allegation of killing the daughter of the informant. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50902 of 2019(4) dt.17-12-2019 2/2 On perusal of status report, as called for from the learned Additional District Judge-III, Munger, it appears that out of thirteen prosecution witnesses, eight witnesses have been examined so far and against rest of the five prosecution witnesses, non-bailable warrant has been issued on 24.10.2019. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T