Petitioner sought bail in an assault case causing death, alleged to be spontaneous. Court declined bail due to sole assailant status but ordered trial completion within nine months.
Prayer for bail rejected; trial directed to conclude within nine months.
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.13305 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2019 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
Decee Yadav S/O Late Mohan Yadav R/O Village Mahugain, P.S-Govindpur, District-Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
5 01-12-2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Govindpur P.S. Case No. 225 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, this petitioner is alleged to have assaulted his father, as a result of which he died.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that informant is own brother of petitioner and the deceased is father of petitioner. From bare perusal of FIR it is apparent that there was no intention to kill rather on the spur of the moment the petitioner became furious and the incident took place. Petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2020.
Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13305 of 2021(5) dt.01-12-2021 2/2
prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is the sole assailant of deceased and he is none else than own son of the deceased.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
However, as the petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2020, trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of nine months.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
vinita/- U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving assault resulting in death where the petitioner is the sole assailant?
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within a specific timeframe?
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail considering the nature of the allegation and his custody status?
Decee Yadav
The State Of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
