Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14573/2018rejected

Shiv Chandra Jha And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-05-09Mr. Justice Arun Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14573 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-465 Year-2017 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ======================================================

1. Shiv Chandra Jha, Son of late Mahavir Jha

2. Ajit Kumar Jha@ Ajit Kumar, Son of Shri Shiv Chandra Jha Both Residents of Village- Ekma, P.S. and District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Patna Medical College Hospital , Patna through its Superintendent.

3. Dr. Anil Sandilaya, Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Science, P.M.C.H. Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amrit Abhijat For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-05-2018 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners, already in custody, seek bail in connection with Supaul P.S.Case No. 465 of 2017 registered under Sections 302,307,323,325,341 and 504/34 of the Indian penal Code.

Allegation in brief is that on account of family dispute, petitioners and other family inmates assaulted the informant's husband who also happens to be full-brother of the petitioner no. 1.

Submission is that FIR was lodged after two days delay and five persons are alleged to have assaulted and only two antemortem injuries have been found on the person of the deceased.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14573 of 2018(4) dt.09-05-2018 2/2 Whereas learned counsel for the State submits that reason for delay is that he was first taken D.M.C.H. Darbhanga for treatment thereafter referred to P.M.C.H. , Patna and there in P.M.C.H. case was instituted and there were two head injury causing death.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, presently the prayer of bail of the petitioners is rejected. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial after framing of charge and conclude the same preferably within a year. If trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, petitioners may renew prayer of bail.

(Arun Kumar, J) sujit/- U T