Binda Rai @ Binda Gope @ Binda Gop @ Vinda Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29206 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2016 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Binda Rai @ Binda Gope @ Binda Gop @ Vinda Ray S/O Ram Chandra Rai @ Rachandra Rai Village- Saidabad, PS- Raghopur, Dist-Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bipin Kumar Deo For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases, out of which in one case petitioner has been acquitted and one case has been compromised, as such the petitioner has antecedent of one case only, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases and petitioner was also implicated in a case relating to abduction of the DEO, Hajipur.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29206 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 4.

The learned counsel submits that petitioner is alleged to be assailant of the son of the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, when informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that it was younger son of the informant who disclosed that it was the petitioner who fired causing death of his elder brother, since he was also present at the place of occurrence.

5.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the case is of the year 2016 and it was only after process under Section 82 and 83 was issued that the petitioner was arrested on 9-10-2024, it is thus submitted that if petitioner is released on bail, the petitioner will abscond. 6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T