Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20727/2024bail rejected

Subodh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-02Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20727 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-609 Year-2023 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Subodh Kumar S/O Dinesh Prasad @ Dinesh Mahto R/O Village- Mathwa Tola Gurmiya, P.S- Ghorasahan, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 02-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 609 of 2023, lodged on 25.10.2023, under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against five unknown accused persons against whom allegation of firing at the abdomen of the son of the informant was made. Thereafter, the son of the informant sustained injury and was taken to hospital where doctor declared him dead.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20727 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 2/2 antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He is in custody since 28.10.2023. Counsel submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made scapegoat in the case due to local politics. Counsel submits that petitioner is ready to abide all the conditions imposed by the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submit that there is material available in the case-diary against the petitioner which reveals from perusal of the rejection order.

6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that upon framing of the charges he may renew his prayer for bail.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T