Pintu Sharma @ Amit Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41674 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -95 Year- 2015 Thana -AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Pintu Sharma @ Amit Ranjan, son of Sri Hridyanand Singh, resident of Mohalla Club Road, Ahri, P.S. Town, District Aurangabad (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lallan Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in a case registered under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

It is alleged that on 15.3.2015 the informant,Vijay Kumar Singh along with his cousin brother Navin Singh went to their market which was under construction. They attended the inauguration ceremony of the shop of Chaudhary Sao and thereafter sat in front of his steel shop in the market. Then he saw Govind and his uncle Bisheshwar Singh talking to two unknown persons. They were talking pointing towards the informant and his cousin. After five minutes they went away. Again at about 6.30

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41674 of 2015 (3) dt.15-10-2015 2/3 O'clock Govind Singh, Bisheshwar Singh, Yugesh Pandey, Janeshwar Chandrawanshi and two unknown persons shot at the temple of Navin Singh, who fell down. Then the informant saw those youths going on motorcycles with Govind Singh, Bisheshwar Singh, Yugesh Pandey and Janeshwar Chandrawanshi towards overbridge.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 25.4.2015. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering with the evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is no substantive piece of evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner. The petitioner has been made accused in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. Other co accused have been granted bail vide Cr. Misc. No.32301 of 2015, Cr. Misc. No.38867 of 2015, Cr. Misc. No. 26033 of 2015 and Cr. Misc. No. 34071 of 2015.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR.

Considering the facts aforesaid, let above named petitioner 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 learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41674 of 2015 (3) dt.15-10-2015 3/3 Aurangabad in Aurangabad P.S.Case No. 95 of 2015 (Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2015).

(Sudhir Singh, J) singh/- U T