Suraj Kumar @ Sudama Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11483 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Suraj Kumar @ Sudama Kumar S/o Patali Ram @ Pataali Ram Resident of Village -Ramchandrapur Sarpar, P.S- Pipariya, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 17.05.2024 at about 10:30 A.M., the informant was sitting at the door of her house. In the meantime, the petitioner came and started abusing the informant and also fired upon her causing injury at her right hand and thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to have fired upon the mother of the informant, hitting her above the chest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the injury report of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11483 of 2025(3) dt.09-07-2025 2/3 informant and her mother do not support the allegations made in the FIR. It is further submitted that though the injuries which were sustained by injured Usha Devi and Pankaj were caused by fire arm, they are simple in nature. It is also submitted that the charges have also been framed in the present case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent and is in custody since 28.10.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioner had fired twice, once upon the informant and then on the mother of the informant, hence, he does not deserve the liberty of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and taking into account the nature of injury and also considering the period of custody, let the petitioner abovenamed, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Lakhisarai in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 47 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the learned Trial Court.
(iii) In case of absence on two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11483 of 2025(3) dt.09-07-2025 3/3 consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be canceled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) Jyoti/- U T