Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20311/2023rejected

Vikas Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-30Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20311 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2022 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran ====================================================== VIKAS RAY S/O- DHANESHWAR RAY Village- Daftarpur Ps- Doriganj Dist- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sumit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 30-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner in connivance with other named accused persons shot dead the elder son of the informant in front of him.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous dispute. Specific allegation of firing is attributed to coaccused Jitendra Ray. Petitioner was only member of mob. Both parties are on inimical term. Petitioner was remanded in the instant case from Doriganj P.S. Case No. 75 of 2021 on 2.9.2022

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20311 of 2023(8) dt.30-01-2024 2/2 and since then, he is in custody.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submitted that informant is the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. As per postmortem, doctor opined cause of death duet o fire-arm injury. During investigation, in para 18, 19 and 20 witnesses have supported the prosecution story.

6. 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.

7. The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U