Jhun Jhun Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23094 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -142 Year- 2015 Thana -SULTANGANJ District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Jhun Jhun Singh, son of Harkhit Singh, Resident of village- Tilakpur, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Bimal Kumar no. 2, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2016 Heard Mr. N.K. Agarwal learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh learned Senior Counsel for the Informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sultanganj P.S. case no. 142/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, when the informant tried to intervene into the occurrence, the petitioner fired upon him which hit in the right side of his chest, as a result, he fell down and became injured. Ultimately, the informant was brought at Sultanganj from where he was referred to Bhagalpur and from where he was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23094 of 2016 (3) dt.14-07-2016 2/2 referred to Patna.

Submission is of false implication and that no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is made out and there is no allegation for repeating the firing, the petitioner is in custody since 02.11.2015 and due to village politics, he has been implicated, there was no ulterior motive and as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned A.P.P. duly assisted by learned Senior Counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner has caused firearm injury on the vital part of the informant.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner at present, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) rinkee/- U T