Danish @ Md. Danish v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26195 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2019 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== DANISH @ MD. DANISH Son of Late Sayed Alam Resident of VillageSujaalpur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Munger. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Kamal Nayan,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 07-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 275 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, in course of investigation his name has been brought and it is alleged that at his instance several personal articles and mobile phones as also the weapon used in firing were recovered. Learned counsel submits that three seizure lists have been prepared in this case and on perusal thereof it will appear that the police personnel are the seizure list witnesses.

It is then submitted that the petitioner has otherwise no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26195 of 2020(4) dt.07-12-2020 2/2 criminal antecedent.

On the other hand, learned APP as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence in which two murders have taken place and there have been recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of regular bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the kind of materials noticed by this Court as appearing in paragraphs '8' to '12' of the case diary particularly that recoveries have been made at the instance of this petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

Let the trial be expedited.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/Rajeev U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.