← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16911/2024bail rejected

Janak Kumar @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-14Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16911 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2023 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ====================================================== Janak Kumar @ Manoj Kumar, Son of Bachhan Yadav, Resident of Mirachak, P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Niranjan Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Manauwar Eqbal, Advocate Ms. Neelam Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case no. 266 of 2023 registered under sections 302, 341, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that on the orders of Subodh Yadav, the petitioner and one another having caught hold of his son, the co-accused Ayush Kumar fired on him with his pistol as a result of which he died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no over act has been alleged against the petitioner who has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 24.11.2023 and investigation in the case has concluded. He has no criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16911 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/2 antecedent.

5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner in the FIR wherein he is said to have actively participated in the occurrence, 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 or on framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T