Shankar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24515 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2014 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui ====================================================== Shankar Thakur Son Of Gonda Thakur @ Gono Thakur Resident Of Village - Karhari, P.S. - Melwaghati, Distt. - Giridih (JHARKHAND) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-05-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Chakai P.S. Case no.92 of 2014 registered under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 353, 121, 121A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act, sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, sections 10, 11 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and section 17 of the C.L.A Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is stated by the informant that on receiving information about the movement of naxalites and supply of ammunition to them, the police personnel reached the place. It is stated that on proceeding towards the place, blast took place and indiscriminate firing was started from the side of the naxalites. It is further stated that on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24515 of 2023(2) dt.18-05-2023 2/2 inquiry it transpired that the petitioner was among the persons who had indulged in firing on the police personnel. Naxals as also some objectionable materials were found at the place of occurrence.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He had no knowledge about the pendency of the case as he was out of State to earn his livelihood. He was taken into custody on 18.1.2023 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. He has no criminal antecedent.

5. Heard learned A.P.P for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation in the FIR, the petitioner being named in the F.I.R, the petitioner having absconded for almost 8 years till he was taken into custody on 18.1.2023, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Learned trial Court directed to expedite the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T