Rahul Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9267 of 2017 (3) dt.06-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9267 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -159 Year- 2016 Thana -JANDAHA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Rahul Singh Son of Rajiv Singh Resident of Village - Mahisaur, Police Station - Jandaha, District - Vaishali..... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 159 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 387, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner and other FIR named accused persons along with unknown started opening firing causing serious injury to the husband of the informant and also injury to others. The husband of the informant went to a relative for treatment. It is alleged that the accused persons used to demand ransom from the husband of the informant and Vijay Sahni and for that they committed the crime.

Submission is of false implication and that from the place of occurrence two used cartridges have been recovered. There is no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9267 of 2017 (3) dt.06-04-2017 specific allegation against the petitioner, the husband of the informant is a veteran criminal and he is an absconder, resulting, he fled away after the occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2016 and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that besides the husband of the informant Govind Kumar Sahni, Pawan Kumar, Raja Kumar and Vijay Sahni have received firearm injury and as such the petitioner does not deserve bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail after remaining nine months in custody from the date of his remand in this case.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T