Chandan Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26613 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -250 Year- 2016 Thana -NATHNAGAR District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Chandan Kumar Mandal, son of Anil Mandal, resident of VillageKanjhiya, P.S.- Madhusudanpur (Nathnagar), District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sir Pramod Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur) P.S. Case No. 250/16, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 324, 506/34 Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted the informant by means of dagger.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case and as a matter of fact, there was a love affair between the informant and the petitioner and they have also fled away together and lived together for two to three years in Delhi as husband and wife and, thereafter, they both come back to their native place and informant went to her previous husband and started living with him and just after few days of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26613 of 2017 (3) dt.21-06-2017 2/2 return of the petitioner, the previous husband of the informant and their family members have brutally assaulted the petitioner and implicated in this case, for which he has also lodged a case against them. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.10.2016. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the informant by means of dragger on her neck and stomach, which caused grievous injury to her, as such, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. His application for grant of regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, from perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that in this case charge has already been framed, as such, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of seven months from today and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T