Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37125/2024rejected

Jitendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-02Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37125 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2021 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Jitendra Singh S/O Late Laghan Singh R/O Village- Baraini, P.S- Belaganj, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aryan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 02-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which was earlier dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 1.3.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32692 of 2022.

4. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner has opened fire upon Sudhir Singh which hit on his chest and he fell down in unconscious condition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. After prevailing good sense between the parties, compromise has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37125 of 2024(3) dt.02-07-2024 2/2 done and supportive document is annexed as Annexure-P/4.

6. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that injured Sudhir Singh has received gunshot injury on his left side of the chest, which is a vital part. Injury report is in consonance with the prosecution story as there is one entry and one exit wound on the body of the injured. Petitioner is a habitual offender and he is having six criminal antecedents.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation of opening fire against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail. Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.

8. The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U