Prince Kumar @ Chiranjivi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67642 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2022 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== PRINCE KUMAR @ CHIRANJIVI SON OF ANIL VINAYAK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE / MOHALLA, - JORA MASJID (BADA INARA), P.S. - BUNIYADGANJ, DISTRICT - GAYA, BIHAR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the State :
Mr.Arun Kumar Singh,APP For the informant Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, Advocate.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 8.1.2022 in connection with Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 2 of 2022 dated 7.1.2022 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 25.7.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. 26306 of 2023 with liberty to file a fresh and proper application and pursuant to the aforesaid liberty, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67642 of 2023(3) dt.03-11-2023 2/3 petitioner has filed the present application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The informant is not the eye witness of alleged occurrence even no one has seen the present occurrence. He further submits that there is no scientific examination of CCTV footage.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is mentioned in paragraphs 59, 60 and 62 of the case diary that the petitioner is seen in action of assault to the deceased. He further submits that the trial is in progress and out of six charge sheet witnesses, four have already been examined.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, direct evidence against the petitioner that he has assaulted to the husband of the informant on account of which he died and apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner carries three more cases other than the present one which are pending, I am not inclined to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67642 of 2023(3) dt.03-11-2023 3/3 enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
8. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the trial at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) S.Ali/- U T