Abhay Pratap Singh @ Guddan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26522 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2022 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Abhay Pratap Singh @ Guddan S/O Sri Awdesh Kumar Singh R/O VilagePupri, P.S- Kudhani, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vaishnavi Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 24-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Kudhani (Turki O.P.) P.S. case No. 257 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, on the alleged date of occurrence the accused persons along with the petitioner armed with came at the door of informant and thereafter they went to the door of his brother and they started calling the name of his nephew Aniket Kumar loudly on which his brother Sanjeet Kumar Singh came out of the bathroom then the petitioner took out pistol from his waist and fired on the brother of the informant due to which he sustained gun shot injury and he died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26522 of 2023(3) dt.24-07-2023 2/2 implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 03.06.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state and earned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that from perusal of prosecution case, there is direct and specific overt act against this petitioner who fired upon the person of the deceased due to which he died. Further, the postmortem report of the deceased corroborates the prosecution case in which doctor opined that the cause of death is due to firearm weapon. It is further submitted during investigation the witness of this case supported the prosecution story.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against this petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T