Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14205/2024bail rejected

Satendra Kumar Singh @ Satendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-24Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14205 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2023 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Satendra Kumar Singh @ Satendra Singh S/O Late Yamuna Singh R/O VILLAGE- GANDHI NAGAR KATIRA, P.S.- ARA NAWADA, DISTRICTBHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 24-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Ara Nawada P.S.Case no.201 of 2023 registered under sections 307, 448, 326, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that as a result of firing resorted to by the petitioner from his rifle, a gunshot hit his thigh as a result of which he sustained gunshot injury and fell to the ground. Coaccused Rajeev Ranjan is also said to have assaulted his younger brother with the butt of the pistol.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14205 of 2024(3) dt.24-04-2024 2/2 case because of family dispute between the parties. The petitioner and the informant happen to be full brothers. No such occurrence has taken place. The manner of occurrence is other than what has been narrated in the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2023 and has no criminal antecedent. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and the rifle shot said to have fired by the petitioner having hit the informant with gunshot injury in his leg, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U