Uma Shankar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16782 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2020 Thana- BAGENGOLA District- Buxar ====================================================== Uma Shankar Pandey S/O- Late Shiv Prasan Pandey Resident of VillagePokhraha, PS- Bagengola, District-Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs.Soni Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 22-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Bagengola P.S. Case No. 100 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner along with other coaccused persons is that they fired upon the informant along with his father. It is further alleged that this petitioner fired upon the back of the informant's father due to which he shot dead on the spot and the reason behind this occurrence is said to be land dispute.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16782 of 2023(4) dt.22-08-2023 2/2 due to land dispute. It is further submitted that before lodging the FIR, the inquest report has been prepared. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 29.07.2022. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in FIR and there is specific overt act against the petitioner to fire on the informant's father on his back portion of the body due to which he shot dead on the spot. It is also submitted that during investigation, witnesses supported the prosecution case and postmortem report also shows that one exit wound found on the back portion of the deceased and doctor opined that the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage caused by fire arm injury. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T