Pintu Nishad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17132 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2021 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai ====================================================== PINTU NISHAD S/o Tunna Nishad R/o village- Malhipur Bind Toli, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barauni (Chakiya) P.S. Case No. 257 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that her husband had gone to attend the marriage of the daughter of Vijay Nishad, when Dilip Nishad, Jeevan Nishad, Pintu Nishad (petitioner) and Indradev Nishad came variously armed and asked for Panchayati an thereafter fired indiscriminately in which her husband received firearm
2/4 injury on his stomach and thereafter it is alleged that Moti, Tanik Nishad and Puran also reached the place of occurrence and started firing hitting her husband on head, further the deceased was declared brought dead by the hospital. The learned counsel submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. it would manifest that though the informant claims to be an eye witness but she is not an eye witness to the occurrence as she alleges that her husband had gone to attend the marriage of the daughter of Vijay Nishad when the occurrence took place and definitely it is not even remotely suggested that the informant had also accompanied her husband.
3/4 indiscriminate firing stands belied, and further reinforces the fact that informant was not an eye witness to the occurrence. The learned counsel further submits that the allegation of firing is general and omnibus in nature.
The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner but is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of firing is general and omnibus in nature as no specific overt act has been alleged against any of the accused and also that the postmortem report reveals that there was only two injury; one on stomach and other on head and, as such, allegation of firing indiscriminately by the accused persons stands belied.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Dilip Nishad has been granted bail by order dated 17.05.2022 in Cr. Misc. No. 70438 of 2021.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the
4/4 like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Barauni (Chakiya) P.S. Case No. 257 of 2021 with a condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father Tunna Nishad.
Further if the learned court below comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner, the court below shall forthwith cancel his bail bonds after recording reasons. (Satyavrat Verma, J) shahzad/- U T