Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24390/2024dismissed

Vicky Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2024-09-17Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24390 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-536 Year-2023 Thana- KOTWALI District- Munger ====================================================== Vicky Ram Son of Mahendra Ram Resident of Village- Shadipur Basbitti, P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rudal Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.N. Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 536 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 302 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The informant, who is father of the deceased, heard the sound of firing and he saw his son lying in pool of blood. The informant has mentioned that his son had previous enmity with the petitioner and it was the petitioner who had fired at his son. After death of the deceased, Section 302 of the IPC was added.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24390 of 2024(4) dt.17-09-2024 2/2 the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The informant did not see the occurrence and he has named the petitioner merely on the basis of suspicion. It has also been submitted that except suspicion, there is nothing against the petitioner and he is under custody since 23.11.2023.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the statement of the deceased prior to his death was recorded in paragraph no. 22 of the case diary and he had stated that the petitioner had fired at him. The post-mortem report corroborates the allegation, as the death was caused by the fire arm.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege for bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T