Rohit Kumar @ Antu Ishwar @ Antu Isar @ Antu Ishar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14062 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2019 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== ROHIT KUMAR @ ANTU ISHWAR @ ANTU ISAR @ ANTU ISHAR son of Late Ashok Ishwar R/O Village-Badalpur Ward No. 23, PS-Samastipur Town, Distt-Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Mr.Pravin Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-04-2021 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Kumar learned counsel appearing for the informant through virtual mode.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Samastipur Town PS Case No. 210/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 341, 354, 386, 452, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation, as per First Information Report, is that petitioner fired upon informant and his family members indiscriminately, causing injury to the informant, his wife and daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to dispute regarding money transaction between the parties. Learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14062 of 2020(5) dt.09-04-2021 2/2 counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2019.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the injured witnesses, during course of trial, have supported the allegation of firing made by the petitioner and the doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by fire-arm and the petitioner has got criminal antecedents and five cases of similar nature are pending against him.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that the injured witnesses including the informant, during course of trial, have specifically, stated that they all have received gun-shot injuries caused by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The same, is hereby, rejected.

7. However, petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today if the trial does not record any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T