Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9328/2020dismissed

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

2020-06-01Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9328 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2019 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Son of Late Baliram Singh Resident of Village - Anjani, P.S.- Sarai, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Indiwar Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for regular bail arises out of Sarai P.S. Case No. 176 of 2019, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 448, 387, 307, 504, 506 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

There is direct allegation against the petitioner of having opened fire and injured the victim. On medical examination, injury on the victim has been found to have been caused by firearm which thus corroborates the case of the prosecution. The petitioner has criminal antecedent as can be seen from the statement made in paragraph 3 of the application. There are as many as eight criminal cases of serious nature registered against him.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9328 of 2020(3) dt.01-06-2020 2/2 Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that he has remained in custody for nearly a year and no tangible purpose would be served if the petitioner is compelled to remain in custody any further after completion of investigation.

Considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having fired the shot leading to firearm injury and his criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner bail for the present.

This application is rejected.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial doesn't commence within nine months from today.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) AKASH/- U T