Bikash Kumar @ Bikash Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41727 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -185 Year- 2016 Thana -PARWATTA District- KHAGARIA ======================================================

1. Bikash Kumar @ Bikash Sahni S/o Fuldeo Sahni Resident of Village - Kulhariya, P.S. - Parbatta, District - Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 12-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S.C. No. 389 of 2016 arising out of Parbatta P.S. Case No. 185 of 2016, G.R. No. 1702A of 2016 for offences alleged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that while she with her husband were coming home at about 9.00 pm five persons including the petitioner intercepted and surrounded her husband and the petitioner fired at the temporal region of her husband and other three accused persons who were also armed, tried to take away the dead body by motorcycle. The cause of dispute is that there was a dues of Rs. 17,000/- on the petitioner to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41727 of 2017 (3) dt.12-10-2017 2/2 be paid to the deceased husband of the informant, but was being avoided on one pretext or the other.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that all the other accused persons have been granted privilege of bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court and the allegation is of firing by other co-accused also. He submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 16.06.2017.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that there is specific allegation of hitting at the temporal region in front of the left ear of the deceased against the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) khushbu/- U T