Patna High CourtCR. MISC./66617/2024dismissed

Satendra Kumar @ Lomar Kumar @ Satyendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-29Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66617 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2023 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Saran ====================================================== Satendra Kumar @ Lomar Kumar @ Satyendra Kumar S/o Raj Kishore Rai @ Pahari Rai R/o Village- Shobhepur, P.S.- Nayagaon, Dist.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8872 of 2024 which is as follows:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Nayagaon P.S. Case No.142 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The father of the informant was assaulted by the accused persons including the petitioners and subsequently, he died in course of treatment.

4. Though the petitioners have given statement in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that they have clean antecedent but, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the petitioners are also accused in Nayagaon P.S.Case No. 146 of 2023 registered under Sections 364/302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66617 of 2024(3) dt.29-11-2024 2/2

5. Considering the fact that for a trivial dispute, the deceased was killed by the accused persons and the petitioners have suppressed their criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of regular bail.

6. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. If there is no substantial progress in the trial, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that five witnesses out of nine have been examined.

4. In these circumstances, since the trial has proceeded, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. This application is dismissed.

5. The trial should be concluded at the earliest. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T