Arvind Singh @ Arvind Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12772 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2020 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== Arvind Singh @ Arvind Kumar Singh son of Rajendra Singh Resident of Village- Patraha P.S.- Choutham District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 06-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Chautham P.S. Case no.149 of 2020 registered under sections 302, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that as a result of the indiscriminate firing resorted to by the four named accused persons including the petitioner herein as also 34 unknown persons, his father sustained gunshot injuries and died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to land dispute between the parties which is evident from the FIR itself. It is submitted that admittedly the informant is not an eye

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12772 of 2024(5) dt.06-09-2024 2/2 witness to the occurrence for the reason that while the informant states that two shots hit his father, the post-mortem report shows that there is only one injury, one is wound of entry and another is wound of exit. It is further submitted that the other co-accused have been acquitted in the trial. The petitioner, who is in custody since 25.5.2023, undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial.

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

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, there being allegation against the petitioner and others of having resorted to firing resulting in the death of the father of the informant together with the petitioner having been at large from June 2020 till May 2023, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

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

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T