Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11953/2017rejected

Matuk Singh @Deep Narain Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-12Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11953 of 2017 (3) dt.12-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11953 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 1993 Thana -KAHAIYA District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== MATUK SINGH @ DEEP NARAIN SINGH, son of Late Dipan Singh, resident of Village- Banjariya, Police Station- Kathaiya, DistrictMuzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raj Bansh Dubey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-04-2017 Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 18.03.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3911 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2015. During investigation the manner of occurrence as alleged has not been substantiated, earlier the petitioner was also implicated in a case punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC vide Baruraj P.S. Case No. 92 of 1985 wherein the petitioner was acquitted vide Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1987 and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner shot Nathuni Rai, the uncle of the informant, thrice one after another causing his death and as such he is the assailant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11953 of 2017 (3) dt.12-04-2017 and further the petitioner remained absconding since long. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected.

However, considering that the case is very old, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T