Mithilesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.77288 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2018 Thana- CHAORI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Mithilesh Paswan, s/o Janeshwar Paswan r/Vill-Athpa, P.S-Chauri, Distt.- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Indra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 06-02-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Chauri P.S. Case No. 48/2018, instituted for offence under Section(s) 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged in the written report that informant learnt by telephone by her Nanad that this petitioner along with his wife has caused death of her husband by giving Chaku blow. Case diary has been received in this case, wherein father, mother and sister of the deceased have stated in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 that this petitioner along with his wife gave Chaku blow to the deceased on account of altercation. Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that in post-mortem report doctor has found one incised wound of size 3"x2"xcavity deep over left side of chest and one incised wound of size

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.77288 of 2018(4) dt.06-02-2019 2/2 3"x2"xcavity deep over back.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that wife of this petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 55715/2018 dated 20.09.2018. This Court finds that informant and other witnesses have levelled specific allegation against this petitioner of giving Chaku blow to the husband of informant along with his wife. In view of such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected.

From the impugned order it appears that charge has already been framed in this case and one witness has been examined.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of copy of order. Petitioner is given liberty to renew the prayer for bail in the event trial is not concluded within aforesaid period. (Sanjay Priya, J) rakhi/- U T