Md. Faiyaz Ahmad @ Lal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22262 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2021 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== MD. FAIYAZ AHMAD @ LAL Son of Mohammad Sabir Ahmad Resident of Village - Nemuwa, P.S. - Supaul, District - Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-07-2022 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 510 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 342, 323, 504, 506, 307, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act. As per prosecution case, there is specific acquisition against the petitioner who has fired at the informant with an intention to kill him, due to which the informant sustained injury on his hand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2022. Petitioner bears no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22262 of 2022(2) dt.12-07-2022 2/2 criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence took place on 17.07.2021 and FIR was lodged on 19.07.2021. There is inordinate delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation for such inordinate delay. The petitioner is a government teacher.

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner as there is specific allegation against the petitioner to cause fire arm injury. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is specific allegation against the petitioner of firing upon the informant (victim) and the same hit in the right hand of the informant, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail of the present petitioner stands rejected. If the trial is not preferably concluded within nine months from the date of said order, the petitioner may renew the prayer for bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkr/- U T