Gabbar Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Kumar @ Shiv Shankar Kumar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4919 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-587 Year-2018 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada ====================================================== Gabbar Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Kumar @ Shiv Shankar Kumar Prasad Son of Late Ragho Mahto @ Radho Mahto R/o vill - Manva, P.S. - Hisua, Distt. - Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shambhu Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 07-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Nawada Town P.S Case no.587 of 2018 registered under sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that while he was going to purchase soap to the market, three persons on three motorcycles came there and opened fire which hit the informant in his leg. The informant states that he identified the petitioner herein and one Mannu Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, the allegations are general and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4919 of 2024(2) dt.07-02-2024 2/2 omnibus in nature and not specific inspite of the informant naming the petitioner and one another accused. There is an unexplained delay of 12 hours in lodging of the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 4.11.2023 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. He has no criminal antecedent.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the informant submits that it was Mannu Kumar and not the petitioner who fired on the informant.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, the petitioner having absconded in a case of the year 2018 and having been taken into custody only on 4.11.2023, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

8. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T