Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29042 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2020 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar Son Of Lalan Singh R/F- Village- Karath, P.S.- Tarari, Dist.- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-11-2022 Heard Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Session Trial No.116 of 2021, arising out of Tarari P.S. Case No.227 of 2020, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed murder of the father of the informant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in custody for nearly two years and the records reveals that in course of trial, the eye-witness namely Lal Bahadur Singh had filed Complaint Case No. 697 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29042 of 2022(4) dt.09-11-2022 2/2 2020 that Kariya Singh had fired upon the father of the informant and not the present petitioner Amit Kumar Singh, and he further referred to the deposition of one Madan Singh who also during the course of trial has deposed before the Court that Kariya Singh had fired upon the deceased.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the informant is the eye-witness and son of the deceased and as such any documents which has been produced in the present bail application will only entail the tampering with the records of the case.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the bail application and has further submitted that from the record it appears that the informant is the eye-witness in whose presence the petitioner has fired upon the deceased.

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, materials on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

(Purnendu Singh, J) aditya/minu U T