Patna High CourtCR. MISC./70009/2024rejected

Dayanand Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-26Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70009 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2022 Thana- KHUSRUPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Dayanand Paswan S/O Late Laldeo Paswan @ Laldev Paswan Resident Of Vill-Magha Malpur, P. S.- Khushrupur, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-11-2024 Heard Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 11.02.2022, in connection with S. Tr. No. 963 of 2022 arising out of Khushrupur P.S. Case No.30/2022, FIR dated 10.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 02.08.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 5599 of 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner has again moved before this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 54916 of 2024 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.08.2024 with the liberty to the petitioner to move before the learned trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70009 of 2024(3) dt.26-11-2024 2/2 implicated in the present case and as per the FIR it appears that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has murdered the informant's mother, namely, Leela Devi by slitting her throat and thereafter the petitioner has also confessed his guilt in the present occurrence.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on the record in the case diary, it appears that the petitioner is the main assailant in the present occurrence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with S. Tr. No. 963 of 2022 arising out of Khushrupur P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna City.

7. Prayer is refused.

8. However the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) ajay/- U T