Abhimanyu Kumar @ Manna Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14844 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2023 Thana- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR DistrictSaharsa ====================================================== ABHIMANYU KUMAR @ MANNA SHARMA, S/O LAKSHMAN SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE- RUPNAGRA, WARD NO. 40, P.S AND DISTRICT- SAHARSA.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Subesh Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 24-04-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Simri Bakhtiyarpur (BKP) P.S. Case no. 210 of 2023 registered under section 394 and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the three accused persons on a motorcycle signaled him to stop. By the time he could understand, the accused fired upon him hitting him in his left hand. He was assaulted and his motorcycle was snatched as was Rs.61,278/- which he was carrying in cash. The accused also took away mobile phone etc. They were aged between 20-25 years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered against three unknown. The petitioner was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14844 of 2024(3) dt.24-04-2024 2/2 falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation because of his antecedents. Inspite of his being in custody since 15.9.2023 he has not been put on T.I.Parade. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State who submits that in course of investigation, the statement of co-accused Sumit Kumar was recorded wherein he has confessed to have committed the crime along with the other accused persons including the petitioner. It was further stated that as per the confession it was the petitioner who fired upon the informant causing gunshot injury in his hand. Further, the petitioner has seven criminal antecedents.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR together with the material that has transpired in course of investigation as has been submitted by learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T