Md. Kaushar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26260 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2021 Thana- RUPAULI District- Purnia ====================================================== Md. Kaushar S/o- Late Fuchan @ Backu R/o Vill- Bela Prasadi, P.S.- Rupouli, Dist- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Akbar Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-07-2024 Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ropouli P.S. Case No. 142 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged that while the informant along with his wife had gone to her agriculture land, in the meantime all the accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon surrounded them. The allegation against the petitioner is of causing fire on the chest of the informants' brother resulting into his death.
4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in fact the informant side was aggressor and they have brutally assaulted the persons of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26260 of 2024(4) dt.20-07-2024 2/2 informants side due to which they sustained serious injuries and referred to Sadar Hospital for better treatment leading to a counter case bearing Ropouli P.S. Case No.143 of 2021. In the aforenoted incidence, apart from injury sustained to two female members, one of the injured subsequently died during the course of the treatment. It is also the contention of the petitioner that there is a long standing land dispute and as such false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. There is contradiction in the statement of the witnesses and as such keeping the petitioner behind the bar would be unjustified.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the petitioner is the person who caused fatal blow.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the specific nature of acquisition of causing firearm injury which proved fatal, this Court is not persuaded to allow the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present application for bail stands rejected. It is expected that the learned trial court shall take own efforts to expedite the trial.
(Harish Kumar, J) durgesh/- U T