Pintu Nut v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20359 of 2020 ======================================================

1. PINTU NUT (male) aged about 20 years, S/o- Umesh Nut, R/o villageRaghopur Bihta, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhola Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-08-2020 Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Bihar. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 571 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The incident is said to have taken place during a marriage function. It is alleged that because of certain dispute, which had arisen in the marriage party, the petitioner and other persons armed with firearms came in the night and started firing. There is direct allegation against the petitioner of having fired shot at the informant, resulting into firearm injuries in his

2/3 right leg above his right knee. Co-accused Baban Nut is said to have fired on one Ram Ishwar Ram, who died on the spot. Other persons also received firearm injuries.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that subsequently, the parties have compromised their dispute. The said submission on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is direct allegation against the petitioner of having fired at the informant, who received firearm injury.

Considering the grave nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner, privilege of regular bail. This application is accordingly rejected.

It is directed that defects in the application pointed out by the Registry must be removed within two months from today.

Since there is a lockdown, the Court has considered it appropriate to adopt following procedure for communication of the present order:- (i) The order, which has been dictated during the course of the proceedings of virtual Court, shall be communicated to me on my e-mail I.D. by the Secretary. (ii) The corrected copy of the order shall be

3/3 transmitted by me from my e-mail I.D. to the Secretary, which shall be treated to be the authentic copy of the order passed by this Court today in the present proceeding.

(iii) Hard copy of the order, duly signed by me, shall be preserved in my residential office for documentation and future use, if any.

(iv) Let a copy of the order be communicated to the learned court below through e-mail or any other appropriate electronic mode by the Registry.

Let steps be taken by the Registry for uploading of the present order without compromising with the norms of social-distancing.

AKASH/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) U T