Chintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47016 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -114 Year- 2014 Thana -KARAKAT District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Chintu Singh, Son of Late Lalbabu Singh, resident of Village Karma, Police Station- Karakat, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. 2(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 114 of 2014, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution case is that Sonu Singh, son of the informant was accompanied by this petitioner in the evening of 02.06.2014 for going to market and late evening at about 6-7 O'clock, informant came to know that his son Sonu Singh has been shot fire by the petitioner Chintu Singh, then he went at village Dhawani, where he found his son sustained gun shot injuries, thereafter, he rushed to the hospital, where he died. The informant raised suspicion against the petitioner saying that earlier petitioner was made accused in one case by the deceased, son of the informant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that informant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. In para

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47016 of 2015 (3) dt.16-02-2016 2/2 9 of the case diary one Kameshwar Prasad Bari stated that this petitioner along with Gokhila Singh, Ranjan Singh, Rinku Singh and deceased Sonu Singh consumed ganja at Dhawani from where Sonu Singh moved towards market with Gokhila Singh, Ranjan Singh. Bhola Kumar, who was resident of nearby place of occurrence said that he heard the sound of firing, but he has not disclosed the name of the petitioner. In para 28 of the case diary it has come that mobile location of the petitioner was not found near the place of occurrence and it was detected that one day before petitioner had only talked to his sister. Further submission is that petitioner is accused in other two cases, but in both the cases, he is on bail. The petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2015.

Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-Vth, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 114 of 2014.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T