Subhan @ Md. Subhan Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68129 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2022 Thana- BALIA BELON District- Katihar ====================================================== Subhan @ Md. Subhan Alam S/o Late Atabul @ Late Ataur Rahaman R/o village - Salmari, Sombari Hatia, P.S. - Azamnagar (Salmari O.P.), Dist. - Katihar ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Md. Qumrul Hoda, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Balia-Belon P.S. Case No. 46 of 2022 (Sessions Trial No. 723/2023) registered for the offences under Sections 302 & 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Katihar.

3. The petitioner is named in the First Information Report and is in custody since 01.05.2022.

4. Allegation against petitioner is to commit murder of son of the informant alongwith other accused persons out of previous enmity arising out

2/4 of certain business activities.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence and out of two prosecution witnesses namely, Dilwar and Md. Maha Alam, who claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence through F.I.R., Md. Maha Alam categorically denied during trial that he was not the eye witness of the occurrence, making case of prosecution prima-facie false on its face.

6. It is submitted that petitioner is not a man of criminal antecedent and, moreover, trial is not likely to be conclude in near future as out of ten (10) prosecution witnesses only five (5) prosecution witnesses were examined till date.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the prayer of bail of the petitioner, submitted that the thrust of allegation is available against this petitioner who stabbed the son of the informant while he was caught hold by other accused persons namely, Purshottam Rai, Karan Rai and Noor Navi. It is submitted by learned A.P.P.

3/4 that post-mortem report of deceased duly corroborate with manner of assault as alleged.

8. A report was also called for from the learned trial court regarding present stage of the trial which made available to this Court through letter No. 358/2024 dated 30th September, 2024, which suggests that out of ten (10) prosecution witnesses, five prosecution witnesses were examined till date and, by all probabilities, trial may likely to be concluded within one year.

9. In view of the aforesaid factual submission as specific allegation to cause fatal blow to the deceased son of the informant is available against the petitioner, which also appears prima-facie corroborated with post-mortem report, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

10. However, considering the custody period, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial in terms of aforesaid letter preferably within next ten (10) months as of now.

4/4 (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Rajeev/- U T