Puttu Mishra @ Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 6858 of 2020 Arising out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2019 Thana- RAMNAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== PUTTU MISHRA @ SANJEEV KUMAR Son of Mahendra Mishra Resident of Village- Sonvarsa, P.S.- Matiyariya, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2020 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2019, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Bagaha, West Champaran.

As per FIR there is allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons that they came on motorcycle and made indiscriminate firing on the deceased causing his death. It appears that the petitioner is accused in thirteen other cases. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the cases are of the year 1999 to 2009 and, thereafter, no case has been lodged against him except this case. Further, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.08.2019.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6858 of 2020(3) dt.27-02-2020 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P. as well as the Informant who has opposed the prayer for bail.

It has been submitted on behalf of the Informant that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report as the person who has also come on motorcycle and made indiscriminate firing and he has criminal antecedents. Considering the submissions as made above, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Vikash/- U T