This is an oral order rejecting an application for bail in a criminal case involving offences under IPC Sections 307 and 387/34. The court refused bail due to strong prosecution case with eyewitness support. The trial was directed to be expedited.
Application for bail rejected; trial directed to be expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12074 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-883 Year-2013 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
RAKESH RAI @ RAKESH KUMAR S/o Suresh Ray R/o Mohalla R.D. Palace, Ward No.18, Indira Nagar, P.S. and Dist- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramakant Sharma Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Atul Chandra, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 883 of 2013, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, informant proceeded from his clinic to his home on his four-wheeler and while he was crossing Kiran Chowk, two bike borne miscreants opened fire. Earlier also there was firing at him. The miscreants were demanding ransom of Rs. 10 lacs and he was unable to pay.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only because of his criminal antecedent. Petitioner is not the holder of alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12074 of 2021(3) dt.06-08-2021 2/2
mobile number 8873907308 through which ransom was demanded. Informant does not claim to have identified the petitioner. No case under Section 307/387 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. From perusal of FIR itself, it appears that neither firearm injury has been caused nor money has been given. Petitioner has been remanded in this case and he is in custody since 24.10.2019.
Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during course of investigation several eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case and in para 66 of the case diary one of the eye witnesses Dashrath Majhi has supported the prosecution case.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of and gravity of offence and the fact that during course of investigation many witnesses have supported the prosecution case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
However, petitioner is in custody since 24.10.2019, trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
vinita/- U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving offences under Sections 307 and 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the trial should be expedited given the petitioner's custody since October 2019.
Whether the prosecution case establishes a prima facie case to deny bail despite lack of eye witness identification.
Rakesh Rai @ Rakesh Kumar
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
