Prem Kumar @ Prem Kumar Tiger @ Prem Kumar Singh @ Tiger v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8916 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -208 Year- 2014 Thana -PUPRI District- SITAMARHI ======================================================
1. Prem Kumar @ Prem Kumar Tiger @ Prem Kumar Singh @ Tiger son of Jugal Kishore Singh, R/o Village- Bhadai, P.S.- Hathauri, DistrictMuzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Ray(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under section 307/34 of the I.P.C and section 27 of the Arms Act.
Allegedly, 4-5 unknown miscreants came at the construction site and opened fire causing injury to Pawan Kumar, one of the clerks working there. During investigation the name of the petitioner transpires, vide paragraph-23 of the case diary, that from mobile no. 8969725389 ransom of Rs. 10,00,000/- was demanded from the contractor of the bridge and the collar stated his name as Prem Singh Tiger (petitioner). He further disclosed
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8916 of 2016 (3) dt.24-06-2016 2/3 that earlier he has opened fire and caused fire arm injury. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2015, he has not been put on the test identification parade, nothing incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the petitioner, the said mobile is not of the petitioner rather it has come during investigation that the said mobile belongs to one Baby Devi Wife of Lalit Paswan and another mobile belongs to one Ravindra Kumar son of Manohar Rai, vide paragraph-51 of the case diary, the petitioner has not demanded any ransom nor he has disclosed his name rather some one has stated his name to implicate him falsely. The learned A.P.P.
submits that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent as he is involved in four cases. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering that charge sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner by remaining in custody now has been sufficiently penalized and as such he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge- 1st, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 347 of 2015 arising out of Pupri P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8916 of 2016 (3) dt.24-06-2016 3/3 relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T