Birendra Mallik v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25109 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2018 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== BIRENDRA MALLIK Son of Banaras Mallik Resident of Village - Usarahiya, At present - Pakri tole, Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Riga, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2020 Heard both sides.

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

The petitioner seeks bail in Riga P.S. case No. 154/2018 registered u/s 341, 385, 387, 307/34 of the IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act.

The informant alleged that while he was selling vegetables the petitioner and other accused persons called him and the petitioner demanded extortion of Rs. 10,000/-. When the informant expressed his inability in paying the extortion money, the petitioner is said to have fired which hit on the neck of informant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25109 of 2020(2) dt.22-09-2020 2/2 occurrence is said to have taken place on 12.05.2018 but the FIR was lodged on 23.05.2018. The doctor found the injury and the injury appears to be grievous but other accused persons have already been granted either anticipatory or regular bail by different benches of this court but it appears from perusal of the FIR as well as the injury report that it was the petitioner who is alleged to have fired pointing the gun on the neck of the informant. The injury was found on the neck and chin of the informant. The doctor found the injury to be grievous in nature. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T