Santosh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14993 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -246 Year- 2014 Thana -PIRO District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Santosh Singh Son of Shankar Singh resident of Village : Lahari Tiwari Dih, Police Station : Piro, District : Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmesh Kumar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad (App) For the informant Mr. Rajiva Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 23-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the informant.

The petitioner is facing accusation punishable under section 307 IPC vide Piro P.S. Case No. 246/2014 and seeks regular bail.

According to the prosecution case, the informant was going to ease when the petitioner and his father arrived and started assaulting him with 'Dabh' (a heavy sharp-cutting weapon). The allegation is that the petitioner inflicted 'Dabh' injury on the head/skull of the informant. From the injury report (Annexure-2) it appears that the informant had received injury on his head/skull. The contention of the petitioner is that no motive is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14993 of 2015 (3) dt.23-06-2015 2 / 2 disclosed for committing such offence. There is some contradiction in the injury report submitted by the Primary Health Centre as well as the PMCH. There is inordinate delay in lodging the case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 04.12.2014.

Counsel for the informant, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that the injury sustained on the skull is attributed to the petitioner which was found grievous in nature. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer is accordingly rejected. He is, however, granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself if the trial does not record sufficient progress within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the court below.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U