Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9642/2016rejected

Arvind Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2016-04-29Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9642 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -53 Year- 2014 Thana -GANGABRIDGE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Arvind Rai Son of Devendra Rai, a resident of Saifpur Tersiya, P.S.- Ganga Bridge, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No. 2 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner is accused in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 53 of 2014 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 504, 307, 302 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur. The accusation is that 19 persons named in the F.I.R. including the petitioner reached at the door of the informant armed with lathi, rod and firearms and started to abuse and breaking the boundary wall. When the informant made protest then at the order of Devendra Rai, his three sons Sanjeet Rai, Praveen Kumar and this petitioner shot fire causing injury to Arvind Rai, nephew of the informant, who fell down. Thereafter, Sujit Rai again made

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9642 of 2016 (3) dt.29-04-2016 2/2 firing on him due to which nephew of the informant died. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in fact, deceased died due to fire injury caused by Sujit Rai but due to land dispute, the petitioner and his two brothers Sanjeet Rai, Praveen Kumar and other family members have falsely been implicated in this case. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, number and nature of injuries, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U T