Md. Miraj @ Mirajuddin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3420 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA CITY CHOWK District- Patna ====================================================== Md. Miraj @ Mirajuddin Son of Late Salahuddin Resident of Village - Naya Tola Gowal Toli, Phulwari Sharif, P.S. - Phulwarisharif, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jay Ram Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Chowk P.S. Case No. 209 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution case, this petitioner called the son of the informant Pankaj Sinha and asked him to come at tea shop near Big Bazar. When informant's went at the tea shop this petitioner along with co-accused Md. Arif and others started quarreling with him and thereafter, this petitioner, co-accused Md. Arif and others shot dead the son of informant Pankaj Sinha and fled away. After having received the information, the informant reached there and took his son to the hospital where during course of treatment informant's son died. It is further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3420 of 2022(3) dt.12-05-2022 2/2 alleged that this petitioner had taken Rs. 25,00,000/- from the son of informant and when he demanded his money, this petitioner along with others committed his murder. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from bare perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the informant is not eye-witness of the occurrence and only on suspicion petitioner has been made accused in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 29.07.2021.

However, counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in para 15 and 16 are the statement of witnesses Rakesh Kumar and Dabbu Kumar goes to show that this petitioner was assailant of the informant's son (deceased) and during course of treatment he died. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T