Dasrath Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 6685 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2019 Thana- BITHAN BAZAR District- Samastipur ====================================================== DASRATH MUKHIYA Son of Narsing Mukhiya Resident of Village - Khairakot, P.S.- Bithan, Dist.- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-06-2020 As of now, the Courts have not resumed normal physical hearing. The matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual Court proceedings with the aid of audio visual technology.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bithan Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 95 of 2019 instituted for the offence punishable under Section (s) 394, 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

Allegation in the first information report is that informant along with his staff Saheb Kumar, was intercepted and fired

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6685 of 2020(7) dt.29-06-2020 2/2 upon by unknown persons and the staff Saheb Kumar has succumbed to the injuries.

Petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the confessional statement of coaccused Wakil Mukhiya. It is his submission that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 19.10.2019 and has not been put on Test Identification Parade till date. He further submits that there is no recovery of looted articles from his possession.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that in paragraph 61 of case diary, it has come that petitioner was constantly in touch with Wakil Mukhiya. The location of Wakil Mukhiya has also been examined. The investigation, as recorded in paragraph 61 of case diary, indicates that the petitioner was actively participating in the occurrence.

Considering the rival submissions, for the present, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U