Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76432/2023bail rejected

Munna Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-05Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 76432 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2015 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== MUNNA RAM SON OF SHYAM BIHARI RAM R/O VILLAGE- CHANDI, P.S.- CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nagendra Upadhyay, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the State and the informant.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 240 of 2015 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 25.08.2015 by the informant, Dev Kumar Singh.

3. As per the prosecution story, on the day of occurrence, the petitioner and the co-accused persons armed variously came at the house of informant. Thereafter, they started abusing the informant's son and attempted to take him forcefully which was objected by the informant and then caused fire arm injury at the chest of informant's son by using a country-made pistol.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 76432 of 2023(3) dt.05-01-2024 2/2

4. Earlier a report was called for which has since been received vide letter no. 177 dated 13.12.2023 and as per it, the predecessor Court has examined all the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed on 20.04.2023. Later, the present Court recorded the statement of the accused person under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 08.09.2023 and thereafter, on 17.10.2023, the defence evidence was also closed and the case was fixed for argument on 24.11.2023.

5. On that day, a petition was preferred by the defence under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. stating that the evidence of doctor is very essential to this case. Accordingly, the trial got delayed.

6. In the aforesaid circumstance and considering the allegation against the petitioner, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.

7. The trial court shall ensure that the trial is concluded within a period of six months from today. (Rajiv Roy, J) kiran/- U T