Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16596 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2019 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura ====================================================== Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Mehta S/o Sri Brahmdeo Mehta, R/o Village- Rambag, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-05-2024 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 03.10.2023, in connection with Puraini P.S. Case No. 208 of 2019, FIR dated 15.12.2019, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

According to the prosecution case, three persons, who were on Apache Motorcycle wearing helmets, opened fire upon the brother of the informant, who later succumbed to his injuries.

4.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that name of petitioner transpired during investigation on the basis of suspicion

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16596 of 2024(3) dt.10-05-2024 2/2 and except suspicion no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggests the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.

5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand on the basis of materials available on record and the case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in the statement of the witnesses recorded in paragraph no. 27 and 28 of the case diary, they have firmly stated that the petitioner has committed murder of the victim, and apart from that the petitioner carries seven criminal antecedents other than the present one, however, he fairly admits that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that petitioner is directly involved in the present crime in question and the witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Puraini P.S. Case No. 208 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.

7.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T