Ram Babu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31589 of 2016 (3) dt.15-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31589 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -193 Year- 2015 Thana -BARGANIA District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Ram Babu Singh Son of Late Parmeshwar Singh resident of village - Marapa Tahir, P.S. Bairganiya, District - Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyadev Prasad Singh Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bairganiya P.S. Case No. 193 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner and other co-accused named in the FIR came being armed and the petitioner fired upon the informant causing injury in the left shoulder of the informant, on alarm being raised by the informant the accused persons fled away. The injured was brought to Bairganiya by the villagers. Submission is of false implication and that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, the doctor has reserved the opinion regarding nature of injury and referred the informant to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi. Investigation has already been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31589 of 2016 (3) dt.15-09-2016 completed and the petitioner has surrendered voluntarily on 27.05.2016 and since then he is in custody. There was no intention to commit murder, there is no repetition of firing and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes by submitting that the bullet was retracted after making operation and as such the petitioner does not deserve bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail after completing nine months in custody from the date of his remand. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T