Gautam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10895 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-702 Year-2023 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Gautam Kumar S/O Raj Mahal Prasad @ Rajmahal Yadav R/O Village/Mohalla- Ahirpurwa, Ps.- Ara Town, Distt.- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Diwakar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 22-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ara Nagar P.S. Case No. 702 of 2023, lodged on 01.09.2023, under Sections 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against one named and one unknown accused persons. Specific allegation against the petitioner is that he has made three gun shot fire on the son-in-law of the informant due to which he was badly injured and bleeding started. Subsequently, he was admitted to hospital. Thereafter, the present case has been lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10895 of 2024(2) dt.22-02-2024 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He is in custody since 01.09.2023. Counsel submits that the petitioner was under treatment and he has attached the prescription of the doctor. He was under depression and medicine of depression was going on to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that charge sheet has already been filed in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner has acknowledged that in the case-diary petitioner was identified and the victim has narrated in her statement as well as in the CCTV footage filed by the I.O. the event of firing of pistol has come on the victim.

7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T