Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52334 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -130 Year- 2017 Thana -GARKHA District- SARAN ====================================================== Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar, Son of Rajeshwar Singh, Resident of Village-Vajeet Pur, Police Station-Garkha, District-Saran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sakir Ahmad, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,149,302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he pierced dagger near the waist of Shamsher Alam, as a result whereof, Sahamsher Alam died subsequently. Though the Doctor who performed the postmortem recorded that there was a spleen rupture with extremism of blood and blood clots in abdomen cavity. However, the cause of death was recorded as haemorrhage and shock resulting from multiple injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. The aforesaid cryptic injury report cannot be relied for disbelieving the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52334 of 2017 (4) dt.12-02-2018 witness at this stage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several persons are accused in this case and there is general and omnibus nature of assault. There is case and counter case. Petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2017. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail for the present in connection with Garkha Police Station Case No. 130 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Saran at Chapra/successor court. Hence, prayer for bail is refused.

However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court who shall consider the prayer without being prejudiced by this order.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- U T