Jai Shankar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1664 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2018 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Jai Shankar Chaudhary, S/o Upendra Sah @ Shankar Chaudhary, R/o Village- Arniya, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vasant Vikas, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Jandaha P.S. Case No. 202 of 2018, instituted for the offences under Sections 302/120(B),506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It is alleged in the written report that brother of the informant, who was Prakhand Pramukh (Block Pramukh), Jandaha, came down from the vehicle to enter into his office. In the meantime, on the instigation of Ram Babu Sahni this petitioner along with other co-accused Abhay Kumar started firing indiscriminately on the brother of the informant, on account of which he sustained serious injury and fell down and subsequently died. After making firing both the accused persons

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1664 of 2019(3) dt.28-03-2019 2/2 fled away on motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the informant as well as the State submit that there is specific allegation against this petitioner. In the post-mortem report doctor has mentioned two injuries of fire-arm on the person of the deceased, which support the allegation against this petitioner.

In such circumstance, this court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and made effort to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The petitioner will be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after nine months if no substantive progress is made in the trial.

(Sanjay Priya, J) khushbu/- U T