Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28887/2024bail rejected

Julesh Kumar @ Julush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-06-26Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28887 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2023 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- Munger ====================================================== Julesh Kumar @ Julush Kumar sonof Nirmal Singh @ Niro Singh Resident of Village- Khaira (Dorai), P.S.-Tarapur, Dist.- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, APP For the Informant :

Mrs. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Adv.

Mrs. Kusum Kumari, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 26-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sangrampur (Tetibambar) P.S. Case No.167 of 2023 lodged under Sections 302, 201, 379, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C. read with sections 25(1-b)a/ 26 (i) (ii), 27 and 35 later added 25(1b)a of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against two named accused persons and the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation against the accused persons of murder of the informant's son with bullet shot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2023 having clean antecedent.

5. Counsel also submits that the other co-accused has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28887 of 2024(3) dt.26-06-2024 2/2 been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 03.05.2024 and 16.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12612/2024 and 9530 of 2024.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

7. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the case of other coaccused persons are different from the present petitioner. He submits that in the confessional statement, the name of petitioner has come that he has fired and make gun shot due to which murder has been caused.

8. Counsel further submits that case diary has been called for. From the case diary in paragraph 50, it has come that the petitioner has been apprehended and thereafter on his disclosure, the arms has been recovered which is used in the crime.

9. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T