Vipin Kumar @ Hari Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34616 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2021 Thana- MEHUSH District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== VIPIN KUMAR @ HARI SINGH Son of Ramasharay Singh Resident of Village - Mehus, P.O. and P.s.- Mehus, Distt.- Shekhpura. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also the informant.

Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks.

The case is registered under Sections 448, 307, 504, 506/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act in connection with Mehus P.S. Case No. 39 of 2021.

As per FIR, amongst other, specific allegation has been made against the petitioner that he opened fire hitting the stomach of the Bablu Kumar, as a result whereof, he fell down on the ground.

Counsel for the informant who has appeared in this case has submitted that the injury was found to be grievous in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34616 of 2022(2) dt.19-09-2022 2/2 nature. It is his further submission that out of nine witnesses, eight have already been examined and as such when the trial is at the fag end, it is not appropriate to release the petitioner against whom there is specific allegation.

Learned APP echoes the submission made by the counsel for the informant.

Taking into account the aforesaid fact that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of opening fire hitting the stomach of the brother of the informant as also the trial is on and eight witnesses have been examined as submitted by the learned counsel for the informant, this Court is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail and the bail application is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/Ajay Singh U T