Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10191/2015rejected

Bigu Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2015-03-25Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10191 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2012 Thana -CHUTIA SAHAYAK District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Bigu Choudhary Son of Late Langeshwar Choudhary resident of village - Panduka, P.S. Chutia, District - Rohtas at Sasaram .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Ray For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shakir Ahmad(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-03-2015 Heard Mr. Bikramjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2012 arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No. 03 of 2012 dated 11-1-2012, registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted indiscriminately with Tangi on the head of the grandfather of the informant, as a result of which he died. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10191 of 2015 (2) dt.25-03-2015 2 / 2 on 27th September, 2013, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 41850 of 2013.

It has been contended that though the petitioner is in custody since 12th January, 2013, but till date only two witnesses could be examined during trial by the prosecution. The last witness was examined in this case on 13th August, 2013. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He has submitted that the petitioner is the main assailant of the deceased and the offence is serious in nature. Regard being had to the gravity of the offence and the nature of the allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.

The learned Additional District Judge -VII, Rohtas at Sasaram, is directed to hold the trial expeditiously in order to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within one year from today, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

B.Roy/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) U