Ampu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19100 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-512 Year-2020 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== AMPU SINGH S/o Late Jagdish Singh R/o village- Kukurmuka, P.S.- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar no.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 307, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is stated to have fired from his pistol injuring the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of land dispute between the parties. The informant himself is a veteran criminal being accused in a number of cases. The occurrence resulting in injury to the informant has taken place in a manner other than what has been described in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19100 of 2021(3) dt.21-10-2021 2/2 the F.I.R. and as a result of the pending dispute between the parties, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 7.9.2020. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Injury report called for has been received and as per the same, the injury found on the informant substantiates the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the allegations in the F.I.R. together with the contents of the injury report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail in case there is no substantial progress in the trial within six months of receipt of a copy of this order in the learned trial Court.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U