Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1634/2018rejected

Rana Ajit Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2018-02-12Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1634 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2017 Thana- KHAIRA District- Saran ====================================================== Rana Ajit Singh S/o Prabhu Shankar Singh, R/o Village- Rampur Kala, P.S.- Khaira, District- Saran (Chapra).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI RAMESH CHANDRA ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 218 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

The FIR has been lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant in which he has stated that on 01.09.2017 when he alongwith his villager Kumod Singh was returning to his house after morning walk, on the way about 6:20 AM two miscreants wearing helmet riding on a motorcycle came and stopped there. The miscreant sitting on pillion fired at him causing injury on his head and when he tried to chase him then during course of which his helmet fell down and he recognize the petitioner. He

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1634 of 2018(4) dt.12-02-2018 2/2 again fired at his chest and when Kumod Singh tried to flee away, he tried to fire on him also and causing injury on his temple. The other miscreant also fired causing injuries on the body of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 09.10.2017.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected. However, after six months of custody the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U