Simant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8334 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2020 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== Simant Kumar Son of Dilip Kumar, Resident of Mohalla - Bajrangballi, Near Hanuman Mandir, Mainpura, P.S- Patliputra, Dist- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Kundan Rathore, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

According to prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Richa Kumari and her husband were sitting in their house. The petitioner (Simant Kumar @ Bittu) along with other co-accused namely, Dilip Kumar, Kuldip Singh, Atul Kumar came on motorcycles and started abusing them. Thereafter, on instigation of accused, Simant @ Bittu took out a pistol from his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8334 of 2022(4) dt.27-09-2022 2/2 waist, and fired 5-6 round on the husband of the informant then the informant's husband sustained injury. The accused petitioners fled away and after some time the police reached and took informant's husband for treatment in Ruban Hospital, Patliputra, Patna but during course of treatment he died. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to admitted land dispute. He further submits that allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is concocted and false and in fact the petitioner is nephew of the deceased. The learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned A.P.P. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that he fired upon the deceased and the postmortem report also corroborate the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 455 of 2020 pending in the court of learned SubJudge-XII-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T