Pankaj Kumar @ Pakaj Kumar Sinha @ Pankaj Sinha @ Pankaj Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14327 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2020 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== PANKAJ KUMAR @ PAKAJ KUMAR SINHA @ PANKAJ SINHA @ PANKAJ KUMAR SINHA Son of Late Birendra Prasad Resident of Village - Jamalpur Hatiya, P.S.- Gogri, District - Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate.

Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2020 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, the learned A.P.P. for the State, through Video Conferencing The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 registered under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria. The accusation is that the informant Binod Kumar Karn being Incharge Circle Inspector of Gogri Circle, after finishing the work, proceeded from there along with Umesh Yadav boarding on the bike. In the way, three persons came on the bike from behind him and overtook his bike. At that time, the informant identified Pankaj Sinha (petitioner) and Chano Yadav but he could not identify

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14327 of 2020(3) dt.17-06-2020 2/2 the person, who was driving the bike. At that time, the petitioner, Chano Yadav and another person fired through pistol but the same passed nearby the head of the informant. Thereafter, they again made firing, which hit at the waist of the informant. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it would appear from the F.I.R. that the allegation has been made in the F.I.R. about making firing by three persons including the petitioner but only one firearm injury was found in the waist of the informant, which is said to be grievous in nature. In course of investigation, no witness has made specific allegation against the petitioner about causing firearm injury in the waist of the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2020.

Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year in jail custody.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T