Neeraj Kumar Niranjan @ Niraj Kumar Niranjan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23122 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2020 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== NEERAJ KUMAR NIRANJAN @ NIRAJ KUMAR NIRANJAN Son of Bibhash Chandra Yadav @ Vivash Yadav Resident of Village - Sahugarh Dewani (Katiya) Tola, Ward no- 15, P.S.- Madhepura, District - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Advocate For the informant :
Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-11-2020 Heard Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amarnath Jha, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 144 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 447, 332, 307, 379, 354(B), 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired bullets upon the wife of the informant with intention to kill her which hit in the left hand and thigh of the wife of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23122 of 2020(4) dt.06-11-2020 2/3 petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to family dispute inasmuch as there is land dispute between the parties and both the parties are co-sharers and agnates. Learned counsel further submits that during course of investigation, the statement of victim has not been recorded. However, referring to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eye witnesses who are related to the informant have categorically stated that one Riyazuddin had fired upon wife of the informant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and learned counsel for the informant submits that in the First Information Report there is specific allegation of assault against the petitioner. In paragraph-33 of the case diary, the supervising authority has also stated that the petitioner had fired upon the wife of the informant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2020 and both the parties are agnates/co-sharers, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23122 of 2020(4) dt.06-11-2020 3/3 released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 144 of 2020. It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bonds all the parties shall follow the guidelines regarding social distancing.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T