Md. Shakil @ Md. Shakil Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27159 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2016 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya ====================================================== MD. SHAKIL @ MD. SHAKIL AHMAD Son of Md. Alidaz Miyan Resident of Village - Manjaul, P.S.- Neem Chak, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ansul For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sewak Choudhary, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-12-2020 Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the matter is being taken up by way of Virtual Court proceeding.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 01 of 2016 instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case in short is that the accused persons, variously armed, fired at the father of the informant due to which he received gun shot injury and later died. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 12.2.2020. There is no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27159 of 2020(3) dt.01-12-2020 2/2 allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. The allegation of assault by the petitioner is denied by him. The informant is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. There is specific allegation against the petitioner of firing upon the victim. The post-mortem report shows that the victim died due to fire arms shot made by the petitioner and co-accused. One of the victim, who sustained injury in course of occurrence, has also supported the allegations made in the F.I.R.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is one of the assailants, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to take steps conclude the trial at the earliest preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T