Dismissed

Bipin Ray v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Aug 2022CR. MISC./29347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application renewed under sections 302, 34 IPC, and section 27 Arms Act, the Court rejected the prayer. Despite pending trial due to court vacancy and hostile witnesses, the direct allegation supported by the informant prevented enlargement on bail while directing expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial.

Bipin Ray Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 29347 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2018 Thana- DARBHANGA District- Darbhanga

¶3

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

¶4

BIPIN RAY S/o Surendra Rai Resident of Mohalla/Vill - Mishra Tola, Nag Mandir, P.S.- Town, District - Darbhanga.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Kedar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶8

4 10-08-2022

¶9

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶10

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶11

The allegation against the petitioner is of having shot the son of the informant in his head as a result of which he died in course of treatment.

¶12

It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that inspite of the petitioner having remained in custody since 4.1.2019, the trial has not still concluded and there is no chance of the same concluding in the near future for the reason that at least three witnesses still remain to be examined and as per instructions received the Court where the

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 29347 of 2022(4) dt.10-08-2022 2/2

¶14

trial is going on is vacant. Referring to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, it is submitted that a number of witnesses have been declared hostile and from the deposition of the informant it would transpire that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶15

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

¶16

A report was called for from the learned trial court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 12.7.2022, out of 13 chargesheeted witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined and cross-examination of PW 10 is going on, however, at the moment the Court is vacant.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the direct allegation against the petitioner which is supported by the informant PW 9 in course of trial, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶18

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶19

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶20

Spd/-

¶21

U T

Bipin Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Ray 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prit Singh Vs Kanhai Kumar Paswan @ Krishna Kumar Paswan and Ors.

Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo Vs the State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of BIHAR,PATNA-1

Rinku Devi Vs The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central Railway Hajipur

Ashok Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Balmiki Goawami Vs the State of Bihar