Veer Kunwar Singh @ Biro Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66595 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2020 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Veer Kunwar Singh @ Biro Singh Son of Late Shideshwar Singh @ Shideshwar Singh Resident of Village- Gara, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, DistrictBegusarai ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Md. Fahimuddin, learned APP for the State.
2. By filing this application, petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail. Earlier his prayer for bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16288 of 2021. The petitioner has got one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.
3. As per the prosecution story, the father and the brother of the informant were murdered in the village and this information was given to her by the co-villagers. When she along with other relatives reached there, they found blood stains in front of the house and by the side of the house. The dead body of her father and brother were lying down by the west side of the bandh where she came to know that her father and brother
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66595 of 2022(4) dt.13-03-2024 2/3 were murdered by her uncle and cousin brother namely Ram Gulam Singh, Veer Kunwar Singh @ Biro Singh (this petitioner), Amarjeet Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh, Satish Kumar Singh and wife of Amarjeet Singh. The murder was committed for the reason that there was a land dispute between the brothers over a piece of land which was an ancestral property and it is alleged that in the past also the accused persons had assaulted the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the three co-accused who were similarly situated with this petitioner have been granted privilege of bail by learned coordinate Benches of this Court.
5. This Court had called for a report from the learned trial court as to the present stage of the trial and the time likely to be taken in conclusion thereof. The report received from the learned In-charge Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Begusarai would show that in this case all the prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. However, it is stated that because the P.O. has been transferred as the Special Judge of Excise Court No. 2 on 20.09.2023 so he had not submitted the time likely to be taken in conclusion of trial, since the court is vacant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66595 of 2022(4) dt.13-03-2024 3/3
6. Learned APP for the State submits that since the trial is on the verge of closure, at this stage there being materials in form of the prosecution evidence which have already come on record, this Court need not examine those evidences for purpose of bail rather an appropriate direction be given to the learned trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest.
7. This Court finds from the materials on the record and the submissions made at the Bar that the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the deposition of eight prosecution witnesses. To this Court, it appears that it would not be appropriate at this stage to examine all the evidences which have come in the trial court so far and consider the prayer for bail. Instead, this Court directs the In-charge court to proceed with the trial and conclude it at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. Let this order be communicated to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai for compliance.
9. This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rishi/- U T