Amal Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1128 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24719 of 2020
    Arising Out of PS Case No.-150 Year-2013 Thana- SHAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
                                       Begusarai
======================================================

Amal Rai, Male, aged about 26 years, Son of Sachidanand Rai @ Sachchidanand Ray, Resident of Village-Raghunathpur, PS-Shahebpur Kamal, District-Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

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

For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with
                        `       Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State           :       Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
For the Informant       :       Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-02-2021

Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel

along with Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and

Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with

Shahebpur Kamal PS Case No. 150 of 2013 dated 16.08.2013, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24719 of 2020 dt.24-02-2021

instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326 and 302 of the Indian

Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as

earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 04.12.2019 passed

in Cr. Misc. No. 44329 of 2019.

4. The allegation against the petitioner along with six

others is that he fired on the son of the informant leading to his

death but specifically against the petitioner is of firing on the

deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted he has

been falsely implicated due to past rivalry and nothing

incriminating has been recovered from the place of occurrence.

However, he submitted that the trial has advanced and the Court

may direct it to be concluded expeditiously as out of ten

prosecution witnesses, five have already been examined.

6. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant

submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have fired on the

deceased which is corroborated by the postmortem report.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24719 of 2020 dt.24-02-2021

9. However, in view of many prosecution witnesses

having been examined, let the Court below expedite the trial and

conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within one year from

the date of production of a copy of this order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T