Raj Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22664 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-880 Year-2020 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== RAJ KUMAR RAM S/O LATE PULKIT RAM R/o village- Biraili Bazar Ward No. 05, P.S.- Madhepura, Distt.- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 11-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 307, 341, 323, 325, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, the 15 named accused persons including the petitioner herein are said to have come variously armed. It is stated that while Bahadur Ram struck with a kudali, the petitioner struck the informant with an iron rod on the informant's head.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The manner of occurrence is other that what has been narrated in the FIR. The petitioner has remained in custody since 1.1.2022 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22664 of 2022(3) dt.11-01-2023 2/2 has no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case. It is further submitted that co-accused Bahadur Ram has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.2.2022 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned trial Court. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that from the injury report, it transpires that the injury on the informant, attributable to the petitioner, has been found to be grievous in nature.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the contents of the injury report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge or after six months, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U