Sikandar Mandal @ Sikendar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82353 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2022 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Sikandar Mandal @ Sikendar Mandal S/O Khairu Mandal @ Ramrup Mandal R/O Village- Bhadariya, Ps. Amarpur, Dist. Banka. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Choubey Jawahar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No.60 of 2022 lodged under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against two named accused persons including the petitioner against whom allegation of gun shot from the back is there, due to which the informant become injured and upon gathering of villagers, the accused persons fled away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that petitioner's name has figured in this case only due to the reason that his antecedent is not clean and there are two criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82353 of 2023(4) dt.19-03-2024 2/2 case pending against him and he is in custody since 21.08.2023.

5. Counsel further submits that the informant and petitioner both are resident of same village and they are wellknown to each other and due to agricultural dispute, this alleged occurrence took place.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

7. Upon specific query whether charge has been framed or not. Counsel submits that charge has already been framed in this case.

8. Considering the allegation which is specific against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial within 6 months and liberty is also granted to the petitioner that in case of non-conclusion of trial, he may renew his prayer for bail after 6 months from today.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T