Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25328/2019rejected

Shamsad Miya @ Shamsad Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2019-08-14Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25328 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-581 Year-2018 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== SHAMSAD MIYA @ SHAMSAD ALAM Son of Ali Akbar Resident of Village - Surahiya East Tola, P.S.- Barharia, Distt - Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P.K. Lall, Adv.

Mr. Amir Alam, Adv.

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv.

For the Informant :

Mr. Ram Sevak Chaudhary, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 581 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 448, 341, 324, 307, 302, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as few days prior to the occurrence, the petitioner had hot exchange of words with regard to alleged money which was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25328 of 2019(4) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 due to the father of the deceased. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since10.10.2018. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.

Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner inflicted dagger blow on the person of the deceased who in course of treatment succumbed to his injuries. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution version, which is evident from paragraph nos. 5, 22, 23, 34, 48 and 49 of the case diary. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarge on regular bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T