Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16989/2024rejected

Bittu Kumar @ Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-20Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16989 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-449 Year-2022 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Bittu Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Son Of Bhola Singh R/O-Berhna P.S.-BARH, Distt.-PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate :

Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-03-2024 Heard Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 449 of 2022, FIR dated 13.07.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23038 of 2023.

4. It appears from the records of the case that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the victim and co-accused also confessed that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16989 of 2024(3) dt.20-03-2024 2/2 petitioner has fired upon the victim apart from that the witness, namely, Randhir Kumar who is an eye witness of the occurrence has also stated in paragraph-90 of the case diary that the petitioner has also fired upon the victim.

5. Vide order dated 01.03.2024, a report with regard to the present status of the trial was called for. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 07.03.2024 reveals that out of eight witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and four prosecution witnesses are to be examined.

6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the report of the trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 449 of 2022 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Barh.

8. Prayer is refused.

9. However the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) ajay/- U T