Kishan Kumar @ Pallu @ Kishnadev Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17441 of 2023

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2021 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger

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

Kishan Kumar @ Pallu @ Kishnadev Kumar S/o Lalchand Tanti @ Lalchan Tanti R/o Village- Milkichak, No.2, P.S- Naya Ramnagar, Distt.- Munger.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Harun Quareshi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶8

3 26-07-2024

¶9

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

¶10

2. By filing this application the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with S.T. No. 98 of 2022 arising out of Naya Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 9 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 449, 326 and 302 He is in custody since 11.01.2021. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

¶11

3. As per the prosecution story, on 10.01.2021, this petitioner had entered into the house of the victim lady and set her on fire. Thereafter the victim was taken to Sadar Hospital where she made her statement before the Executive Magistrate, Munger and the S.H.O. of the concerned police station. The victim died in course of her treatment.

¶12

4. While taking into consideration the merit of this case, this Court had rejected the prayer for bail. At this stage, the report

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17441 of 2023(3) dt.26-07-2024 2/2

¶14

of the learned trial court would show that out of eight prosecution witnesses, six have already been examined and the case was pending for evidence of the Doctor and the I.O.

¶15

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not fully aware

¶16

as to what has happened during this period of six months.

¶17

6. Learned APP for the State submits that since the trial itself is likely to be concluded very soon and the materials which have come in course of trial are not before this Court, therefore, the petitioner would not deserve bail.

¶18

7. Having regard to the submissions noted hereinabove and on finding that out of eight prosecution witnesses, six have already been examined and there is every likelihood of conclusion of trial within a reasonable period, this Court is not inclined to direct release of the petitioner on bail. Prayer is refused.

¶19

8. The learned trial court is expected to ensure presence of the Doctor and the I.O., if they have not appeared till date and for this purpose, if required, the trial court shall take coercive action but in terms of its own report, the trial be concluded as early as possible.

¶20

9. This application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶22

Rishi/- U T

Kishan Kumar @ Pallu @ Kishnadev Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Kumar @ Pallu @ Kishnadev Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Rai @ Vikash Kumar Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Gopal Prasad @ Gopal Koiry Vs The State of Bihar

Yashwant Kumar Singh @ Yashwant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kailash Mandal @ Amit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sri Rajesh Kumar Goyal Vs The Union of India through Assistant Director (Pmla), Directorate of Enforcement