Nitish Kumar @ Guhan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42105 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No. - 15 Year- 2014 Thana -LAKHISARAI District- LAKHISARAI ====================================================== Nitesh Kumar @ Guhan Singh Son of Makeshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Rehua, P.S. and Dist.- Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioners seek bail in a case registered under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant named eight persons and alleged that while her husband was constructing a new house, all the accused persons came. Pankaj Singh and Nitesh Kumar @ Guhan Singh (the petitioner) are alleged to have assaulted the husband of the informant with iron rod on his head.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant has made allegation that Pankaj Singh and Nitesh Kumar both assaulted the deceased with iron rod on his head, but Pankaj Singh has already been granted bail. It is further submitted that other accused persons have also been granted bail. On perusal of the order passed by

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42105 of 2014 (3) dt.09-02-2015 2/2 this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 26467 of 2014, it appears that of course the informant has alleged in her Fardbeyan that Pankaj Singh and the petitioner assaulted Shailendra Singh with iron rod but subsequently the informant and other eye witnesses have very categorically stated that it was Nitesh Kumar @ Guhan Singh (the petitioner), who assaulted the deceased Shailendra Singh with iron rod on his head and, on this ground, accused Pankaj Singh was granted bail.

Considering the facts that the petitioner is the author of the injury found on the head of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 15 of 2014. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

However, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt / production of this order.

If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail firstly in the court below itself.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T