Kundan Rai @ Kundan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16092 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2022 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Kundan Rai @ Kundan Kumar Son of Loha Rai @ Shiv Kumar Rai Resident of Village- Terasiya, Police Station- Ganga Bridge, in the district of Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Supriya Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 17-05-2024 Heard Mr. Supriya Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 171 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 326, 307, 354, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 14.7.2022 by the informant, Ranjeet Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, is that on 11.07.2033 at abour 8-13 PM, the accused persons armed with 'Hasua', 'Farsa' 'Sword', 'Garasa', country made 'Katta' and 'Rifle' came to the door of informant and started abusing. The Informant's brother objected on which the accused Ram Babu Rai gave order to shoot him. Thereafter, Kundan Rai fired from country made 'Katta' due to which his brother got injured and he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the accused persons entered the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16092 of 2024(3) dt.17-05-2024 2/2 house of informant and looted jewellery and cash Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, the accused persons fired in air and fled away. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 13 members of the family have been made accused, the petitioner included. Although, allegation has come, the same still has not been proved.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer stating that he he is the person who shot at which hit the informant's brother causing injury.
6. Considering the allegation that has come against the petitioner, for the present this Court is not inclined to extend him relief and his bail application stands rejected.
7. Before parting, this Court would like to put on record its word of appreciation for Ms. Supriya Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner for the proper assistance rendered in the matter.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T