Suresh Pasi @ Suresh Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21056 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2014 Thana- KHODAWANDPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== SURESH PASI @ SURESH CHOUDHARY SON OF RAJENDRA PASI @ RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BARA, P.S. - KHODAWANDPUR, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anshu Dhar Sharma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 134 of 2014 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Two unknown persons are alleged to have shot fire upon the brother of the informant and fled away. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. but merely on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, Nagmani Mahto, he has been made accused in this case. Save and except the confessional statement of the co-accused, no cogent material has surfaced during course

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21056 of 2023(3) dt.12-07-2023 2/2 of investigation suggesting the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet in this case against the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 18.01.2023.

Learned A.P.P. for the State on the basis of material available on record and the case diary vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation that the dying declaration of the victim/deceased has been recorded in which he has categorically stated in paragraph-62 of the case diary that petitioner has fired upon him. Not only that the co-accused has also confessed his guilt and disclosed the name of the petitioner, who was involved in the alleged occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner carries seven more cases other than the present one. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the dying declaration of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T