Bhola Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 80020 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2017 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== BHOLA YADAV S/o Sukhdeo Yadav @ Khusdeo Yadav R/o villageSangowar, P.S.- Nadriganj, District- Nawadah ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Shahabuddin Azeem @ S Azeem, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Nadriganj Police Station (for brevity PS) Case No 196 of 2017 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

The petitioner is alleged to have committed murder of the mother of the informant by entering into the house; by means of a country made pistol.

Prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 24.05.2018 by this Court in Cr Misc No 24946 of 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80020 of 2019(4) dt.22-01-2021 2/2 the trial, witnesses have not supported the allegations and that it is a case of false implication based on subsisting family disputes.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is the uncle of the informant. The informant is witness to the occurrence as per the prosecution case and the report regarding the stage of trial suggests that the matter is only pending for final argument. In view of the aforesaid submissions and circumstances emerging from the submissions, this Court would observe that the Court below (Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special Judge, Nawada) should take the trial (Sessions Trial No 89 of 2018) to its logical conclusion expeditiously, without any delay and preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Considering the rival submissions, this Court, for the present, is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail. The same is rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T