Mantu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33958 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2022 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== MANTU SINGH Son of Raghunath Singh Resident of Village - Gangapur, Ward No.2, P.S.- Alam Nagar, Distt.- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 17-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution case, it is stated by the informant that as a result of differences between Lal Kumar Yadav and Ajit Kumar Mehta, it transpires Ajit Kumar Mehta hired a professional killer namely Vikky Mehta on whose orders the six shooters named in the FIR including the petitioner herein carried out the occurrence. They were seen going towards and coming from the place of occurrence.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33958 of 2022(4) dt.17-01-2023 2/2 is no eye witness to the occurrence. Even as per the FIR differences is between Lal Kumar Yadav and Ajit Kumar Mehta and not the petitioner herein. Even the name of the witness who claimed to have seen the accused persons including the petitioner going towards and coming from the place of occurrence has not been mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner is in custody since 11.4.2022 and charge sheet has been submitted in the case.

Heard learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation in the FIR together with the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U