Sanatan Kumar @ Shantanu @ Sanatan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18720 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-442 Year-2019 Thana- KOTWALI District- Munger ====================================================== SANATAN KUMAR @ SHANTANU @ SANATAN Son of Sanjay Kumar Pankaj Resident of Village- Shadipur, Kali Mandir, P.S.- Kotwali, DistrictMunger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indu Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-08-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 442 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution case, on 30.10.2019 around 6.00 pm, Pawan Kumar (deceased) came out of his house stating that he is going to Shadipur. The informant at 9.15 got information that his brother (Pawan Kumar) has been shot. The informant along with others went to Shadipur Badi Durga Sthan

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18720 of 2020(4) dt.25-08-2020 2/2 and found the dead body of his brother lying in pool of blood and having bullet injuries on his chest, abdomen, foot etc. It is further alleged that on 27.10.2019, a scuffle took place between the deceased and the accused persons including this petitioner who threatened to kill him and today finding him alone they killed his brother.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. There is no eye-witness of occurrence. Petitioner was not present at the time and place of occurrence. Petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2019.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that on his disclosure, arms and ammunitions used in the commission of crime were recovered from the house of co-accused.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T