Satya Narayan Singh @ Satye Naran Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29205 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -84 Year- 2017 Thana -BIKRAMGANJ District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Satya Narayan Singh @ Satye Naran Singh son of late Raghubansh Singh Resident of Village- Duary, Police Station- Karakat, District Rohtas at Sasaram.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Girish Chandra Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 84 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 504, 324, 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons is that they came variously armed and started indiscriminate firing causing death of one of the deceased and also causing injury to other persons. All injuries are said to be by fire arms.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29205 of 2017 (3) dt.18-07-2017 though it is alleged that the petitioner was armed with Katta but there is no recovery of Katta and seizure memo also shows said fact. Further drawing the attention towards Annexure-2, it has been submitted that petitioner was just passing from the place of occurrence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Heard learned APP as well as learned counsel for the informant. They have stated that almost all the witnesses have supported the prosecution cases.

Having heard both sides and in view of the aforesaid submissions, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As such prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the trial may be expedited.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) S.Sb/- U T