Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32235/2019rejected

Raj Kishore @ Raj Kishore Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-12Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32235 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2018 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAJ KISHORE @ RAJ KISHORE RAM Son of Vishwanath Ram @ Bishwanath Ram Resident of Village-Raghunathpur Tola-Bhalua, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District-East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vikash Kumar Pankaj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 294 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. During investigation also, nothing has come showing complicity of this petitioner in the alleged crime. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 02.03.2019.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32235 of 2019(4) dt.12-09-2019 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report. Petitioner is the person who had asked the informant to come to the place of occurrence where he was fired upon. During investigation, witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T