Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37117/2015rejected

Brahmdeo Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

2015-12-08Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37117 of 2015 (4) dt.08-12-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37117 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -155 Year- 2014 Thana -KARAI PARSURAI District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Brahmdeo Pandit, son of Manog @ Manogi Pandit, resident of village Kamrathu, P.S. Karai (Parsurai), District Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Das For the Opposite Party/s Mr. Zainul Abedin(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04/ 08.12.2015 Power is filed on behalf of the informant.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

According to the prosecution case itself, while informant along with wife and the deceased was going, a firing was made from the house of the petitioner as a result whereof, deceased sustained fire arm injury and he was immediately taken to hospital where he was declared dead. The wife of the informant claimed to have seen the petitioner making firing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the person had seen who had made firing and the petitioner has been implicated in this case on mere suspicion on account of village politics.

Learned counsel for the informant submits that in course of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37117 of 2015 (4) dt.08-12-2015 investigation, several witnesses supported the prosecution story and claimed to have seen the petitioner making firing. It is surprising enough that statement of the informant's wife was not recorded by the Investigating officer in course of investigation but some witnesses claimed that it was the petitioner who opened firing causing death of the deceased. Since petitioner appears to be the main assailant, I am not inclined to release him on bail and accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Karai Parsurai P.S. Case no. 155/2014 pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa/concerned court stands rejected, at least, at this stage.

shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J) U T