Dismissed

Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC5 Sept 2018CR. MISC./26623/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna heard a criminal bail petition filed by a petitioner involved in an FIR where he and his associates caused deaths. The court refused the third bail application, citing nature of incriminating materials, antecedents, and delays in trial caused by the petitioner's side.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for bail is refused and a direction is issued to the learned trial Judge to conclude the trial within four months.

Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26623 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -14 Year- 2016 Thana -BITHAN BAZAR District- SAMASTIPUR

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh, S/o Sadanand Singh, R/o Vill. - Hasanpur, District - Samastipur.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Mistry For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Sangeeta Sharma

¶10

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 05-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

According to FIR, the petitioner fired at Birendra

¶13

Yadav causing injury at the temporal region. Thereafter, the petitioner and his associates resorted to indiscriminate firing causing death of Birendra Yadav and Birju Yadav. Petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2016.

¶14

Earlier prayer for bail to the petitioner was refused on 08.09.2016 in Cr. Misc. No. 36044 of 2016 by a Bench of this Court with following observation “having regard to the nature of incriminating materials available on record coupled with the antecedents of the accused-petitioner, this Court is of the view that at this stage, the accused-petitioner, above named, cannot be allowed to go on bail. Accordingly, prayer was refused.”

¶15

Thereafter, the petitioner renewed the prayer before

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26623 of 2018 (3) dt.05-09-2018

¶17

2/3

¶18

this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 17877 of 2017 and by order dated 04.07.2017, this Court refused the prayer for bail with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, this is the third attempt of the petitioner.

¶19

By order dated 02.05.2018, the matter was adjourned for four months on the submission of learned counsel for the informant that trial is likely to be concluded within four months. The trial could not conclude due to laches of the State Machinery. In the circumstances, the informant was compelled to move this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 21 of 2018 wherein the State-authorities were directed to produce prosecution witnesses.

¶20

The informant was further directed to produce entire order sheet of the court below. After order of the Writ Court, to proceed with the trial on day to day basis, to substantiate the reason for delay disposal of the trial, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of full cooperation on the part of the petitioner (he is already in custody), the trial has not concluded. The informant has not produced the copy of order sheet as directed rather learned counsel for the informant is in possession a counterfoil of the application

¶22

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26623 of 2018 (3) dt.05-09-2018

¶23

3/3

¶24

for certified copy of the aforesaid order sheet.

¶25

It has been informed that prosecution evidence has already closed on 03.08.2018, thereafter the accused persons have filed transfer petition for transfer of the trial with intent to delay the disposal of the case.

¶26

Considering the entire facts of this case above, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, prayer for bail is refused with direction to the learned trial Judge to conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by proceeding on day to day basis. If the trial would not progress due to delaying tactics adopted by the accused persons this time frame would not be applicable.

¶27

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶28

Kundan/-

¶29

U T

Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Lalan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Mohammad Shahanshah @ Mohammad Sansha Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Habib Miyan @Habib Miyan @ Habiya Vs The State Of Bihar

Parmila Devi @ Pramila Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Gurudeo Thakur and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar