Rampravesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9179 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2018 Thana- MEDNI CHAUKI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Rampravesh Paswan Son of Shiwan Paswan Resident of Village - Abgil, P.S.- Medani Chawki, Distt - Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Medani Chowk P.S. Case No. 62 of 2018 registered for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, it is stated that the accused persons came variously armed and the petitioner is stated to have fired hitting the son of the informant in his stomach.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that application for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28026 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9179 of 2020(3) dt.09-06-2020 2/2 2019. The petitioner has remained in custody since 22.01.2019 and he has been falsely implicated in the case because of the land dispute between the parties.

A report had been called for vide order dated 19.02.2020 with respect to stage of the trial. A report contained in letter no. 8/ 2020 dated 26.02.2020 of learned Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai has been received, wherein it is stated that six out of nine prosecution witnesses have been examined and the last prosecution witness was examined on 15.02.2020. Three prosecution witnesses including the doctor and I.O. remained to be examined.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the direct allegation against the petitioner in the FIR together with the progress in the trial, the court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, the application for bail is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U T