Pintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29813 of 2017 (2) dt.11-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29813 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -149 Year- 2016 Thana -NAUGACHIA District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Pintu Singh, Son of Late Prakash Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Mil Tola, Naugachia, P.S.- Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur..... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ansarul Haque, APP For the Informant :- Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Naugachia P.S. Case No. 149 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, the informant Sunita Devi along with her brother-in-law was going to Basa. All of a sudden criminals came on five motorcycles and they made indiscriminate firing. The informant identified the petitioner and other accused persons. Submission is of false implication and that there is general and omnibus allegation of firing against the petitioner, there is no specific allegation against him, other co-accused Dhananjay Kumar and Mukesh Kumar have been allowed bail and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29813 of 2017 (2) dt.11-07-2017 as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that Dhananjay Kumar and Mukesh Kumar were not named in the FIR and then they have been granted bail whereas prayer of bail of Ajit Yadav, Sachin Yadav and Nand Kishore Mandal have already been rejected by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court. The deceased has got as many as 14 firearm injuries, the petitioner is also alleged to have fired, the trial is likely to be concluded as all the witnesses have been examined and only the doctor is to be examined.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial as per direction given in Cr. Misc. No. 19951 of 2017. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T