Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41026/2014rejected

Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2015-03-10Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41026 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -567 Year- 2013 Thana -TURKAULIYA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar, son of Rajeshwar Rai, Village- Mokhlishpur, P.S.- Banjaria, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manindra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 10-03-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Trial No.358/14 arising out of Turkaulia (Banjaria) P.S. Case No.567/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he took the deceased Ejaj Ahamad with him and on the next day, his dead body was found near the river.

It is submitted that the petitioner is the neighbour and friend of the deceased. No one has seen committing any offence by the petitioner. He has no criminal antecedent. The learned counsel for the State submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41026 of 2014 (5) dt.10-03-2015 2/2 petitioner was last seen with the deceased. During investigation, the petitioner has also made confession to have killed the deceased with the help of other accused. After investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. The report of the trial court shows that eight witnesses have already been examined and the trial is likely to be concluded for more than six months.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. His prayer is rejected.

The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial preferably within nine months. If the trial is not concluded within nine months, it will be open to the petitioner to move the learned trial court for grant of bail.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) V.K. Pandey/- U T