Dipak Rai @ Deep Narayan Rai @ Dipan Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9450 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2020 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== DIPAK RAI @ DEEP NARAYAN RAI @ DIPAN RAI Son of Dev Chandra Rai Resident of Village- Sapgdha, P.S.- Chiraiya, District- East Champaran at Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 07-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 325, 324, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per prosecution case, When the informant and his family members were working on their land then all accused persons, who are named in the FIR came with lathi, danda, farsa and rod. The allegation against the petitioner is of firing upon the Santosh Rai, due to which he sustained injury and became senseless. It is further alleged that the other co-accused persons fired upon the informant's husband namely Ramkewal Rai, due to which he died. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9450 of 2023(4) dt.07-07-2023 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. He has committed no offence. The specific allegation of firing is against co-accused Punyadev Rai, who shot fired upon the informant's husband, due to which he died. There is no specific overt act against the petitioner of firing to the deceased. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition. He is languishing in judicial custody since 08.09.2021. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of custody, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned in connection with Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 282 of 2020.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T