Vicky Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56950 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-610 Year-2022 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== VICKY SINGH SON OF LATE UMESH KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - JANAKPURIYA, POLICE STATION - CHAURI, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Shankar Upadhyay For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Koilwar P.S. case No. 610 of 2022 instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The main allegation as per FIR is that son of the informant, namely Aryan Raj, was killed by the caller by means of iron angle and iron rod.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56950 of 2023(3) dt.14-03-2024 2/3 Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of this petitioner has cropped up in this case in self-confessional statement which reflects at para no. 28 of the case diary (as per impugned order). Learned counsel further submitted that informant is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 04.10.2022 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is opined shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries caused by hard blunt substance which corroborates the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of CCTV footage (para-11 of case diary) and CDR (para-27, 28 of the case diary), the involvement of this petitioner in the alleged occurrence gains credence, and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge this petitioner on bail.

7. Prayer is rejected.

8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56950 of 2023(3) dt.14-03-2024 3/3

9. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to renew the prayer for grant of bail if the trial is not concluded within 9 months.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T