Ranglal Baidh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2437 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2020 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== RANGLAL BAIDH S/o Manjan Baidh R/o village- Khajechand Chhapra, P.S.- Goraul (O.P. Kathara), Distt.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Goraul P.S. Case No. 184 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 354(B), 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been also added subsequently. The prosecution case as emerging from the FIR is

2/4 that the petitioner along with his associates had came to the house of the informant and started assaulting him with lathi, danda and sharp weapon. It is further alleged that one accused person, namely, Ranglal Baidh had assaulted the son of the informant and thereafter all the accused persons tried to outrage the modesty of one Pavitri devi, Bhabhi of the informant. The injured son of the informant subsequently died.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the informant has falsely claimed to be eye-witness. There is no injury report in regard to the informant in the case-dairy. He further submits there is only injury in regard to deceased Rahul Kumar, the son of the informant, due to which he died. He also submits that investigation in this case is complete and charge-sheet has been submitted and even charge has already been framed and prosecution witnesses are to be examined. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 02.06.2020.

3/4 It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the petition that the petitioner has not moved earlier before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail. It has further been stated in paragraph no. 3 that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

However, the learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail saying that as per the allegation it is the present accusedpetitioner who caused injury to Rahul Kumar which resulted into his death.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

The prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.

However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. In case, the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within a

4/4 period of ones month and the Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) ashishkr/- U T