Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20293 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Ranjeet Kumar Jha S/O Shri Sambhu Nath Jha Resident Of Village- Agroul, P.S- Singhiya, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 3. 16-07-2012. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Ranjeet Kumar Jha who is in custody since 23.12.2009 in Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.214 of 2006 under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State also. It appears that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by this court in Cr. Misc. No.12401 of 2010 on 25.5.2010 and Cr.Misc.No.8956 of 2011 on 21.6.2011. According to the prosecution case, this petitioner Ranjeet Kumar Jha, along with other co-accused persons entered the house of the informant and fired indiscriminately on the informant’s brother, Satyedra Dubey and Pankaj Thakur and also on the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20293 of 2012 (3) dt.16-07-2012 2 informant’s son in which three persons died. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after rejection of the prayer for bail, the case was committed to the court of sessions and out of 18 chargesheeted witnesses, 12 have been examined and the persons who were claming themselves as eye witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution and the petitioner is in jail for the last about three years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. objected the prayer for bail. From perusal of the earlier order, it appears that the prayer for bail was rejected mainly on the ground that the witnesses in their statements at paragraph no.15, 16, and 17 of the case diary have clearly named this petitioner who has made indiscriminate firing along with other co-accused persons. One of the injured Pankaj Thakur has been examined and whose statement is at para-15 of the case diary, At the time of hearing of this application, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced certified copies of the depositions of P.Ws. 6 and 7 whose statements have been recorded in paragraph nos.16 and 17 o the case diary. Prima facie, from perusal of the deposition of P.W.6 and P.W.7, it appears that they have stated the same thing as stated in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20293 of 2012 (3) dt.16-07-2012 3 para-16 and 17 of the case diary. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the cross-examination, they have failed to support the case, is concerned, in my opinion, at this stage, when the bail application is being heard, this court can not examine and scrutinize or otherwise of the statements of the witnesses as it will affect the trial of the case. Further, the injured Pankaj Thakur, whose statement has been recorded at para-15 of the case diary, who has also clearly named the petitioner, has not been examined as yet. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected. However, the trial court shall make endeavor to expedite the trial. ahk/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.