Prabhat Kumar Singh @ Nikku Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21880 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Prabhat Kumar Singh @ Nikku Singh Son of Rudra Narayan Singh Resident of Village- Sardih, PS Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar 1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 307, 324 and 34 of the I.P.C and section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, two persons on the motorcycle wearing helmet came near the informant and opened fire which hit on his left wrist and also below the left chest and thereafter both fled away after leaving their motorcycle. It is suspected that the petitioner and his friend wanted to kill the informant. Submission is of false implication only due to suspicion, from perusal of the fardbeyan it reveals that the informant has not identified the petitioner clearly but only on suspicion he is named, during investigation the story has been developed and the informant has stated that from the glass of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21880 of 2016 (4) dt.13-07-2016 2/2 helmet he identified the petitioner, there is no allegation that the firing was repeated, charge sheet has already been submitted after concluding the investigation and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

The learned A.P.P. submits that the motorcycle used in the crime was in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Singh son of Bikram Prasad Singh, vide paragraph-50 of the case diary. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering that there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and as such the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Saharsa in Saharsa P.S. Case No. 189 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T