Jai Hari @ Punu Singh @ Punu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13379 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-501 Year-2018 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== JAI HARI @ PUNU SINGH @ PUNU KUMAR Son of Late Ram Badan singh Resident of Village - Karama, P.S. - Suryapura, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nagendra Upadhyay, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through the virtual court proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 379, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Allegation against the petitioner is that at his instance firing was made on the informant. Although, the informant has not identified the assailant but he suspected that this petitioner is behind the firing.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13379 of 2021(2) dt.11-01-2022 2/2 petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that similarly situated coaccused have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. This Court has repeatedly put a question to the petitioner's counsel as the injured person died during the treatment or not but the learned counsel denied the said fact. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the injured died due to firearm injury but Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has not been mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the bail application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 501 of 2018. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T