Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25487/2017disposed

Anant Kumar @ Anand v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-14Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25487 of 2017 (5) dt.14-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25487 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -250 Year- 2015 Thana -BAHADURGANJ District- KISANGANJ ======================================================

1. Anant Kumar @ Anand Son of Mahesh Ram, Resident of VillageRiwadih, (Rewa Basantpur) PS-Saraiya, District-Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalita Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is in custody since 02.11.2016 in connection with G.R. No. 1429 of 2015 arising out of Bahadurganj P.S. Case No. 250 of 2015 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner has been made accused in this case on the basis of suspicion, which is evident from the F.I.R. itself. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Charges have been framed in this case and there is no allegation of tampering with the evidences against the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in custody for more than seven months.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25487 of 2017 (5) dt.14-07-2017 bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The witnesses have also supported the prosecution version which is evident from paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20 and 21 of the case diary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner is rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T