Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2920 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2024 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Rohit Kumar S/o Ramkripal Singh Resident of Village- Ramuniya, Gangour O.P., P.S.- Khagaria, Distt.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amar Anand, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 11-04-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Khagaria P.S. Case no.378 of 2024 registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, who happens to be the nephew of the informant, is said to have fired upon the informant leading to the informant sustaining gunshot injury in his leg.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relationship between the parties is evident from the contents of the FIR itself. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of pending land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2920 of 2025(4) dt.11-04-2025 2/2 informant visiting the doctor as also the registration of the FIR. The injury report does not support the prosecution case in so far as no injury on vital part of the body has been found. The petitioner is in custody since 30.7.2024 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of having fired upon the informant and a corresponding injury has been found.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR being that the petitioner fired upon the informant resulting in firearm injury on the leg of the informant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Taking into consideration the period in custody of the petitioner together with the relationship between the parties, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T