Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39869 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2021 Thana- SIGAUDI District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

DEEPAK KUMAR Son of Sanju Bind @ Sanju Vind Resident of VillageKarhara Dibra, Police Station- Sigori, District - Patna. 2.

Sanoj Kumar Son of Sanju Bind @ Sanju Vind Resident of Village- Karhara Dibra, Police Station- Sigori, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Rani Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-01-2023 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sigori P.S. Case No. 34 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, petitioner No. 1 Deepak Kumar inflicted knife on the neck, petitioner no. 2 Sanoj Kumar assaulted on the left jaw by means of knife and co-accused Tuntun Bind inflicted knife on left temple of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39869 of 2022(3) dt.24-01-2023 2/2 petitioners are in custody since 21.03.2022. Petitioners bear no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The date of occurrence is 25.02.2021 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.03.2021, there is no explanation given regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioners which is supported by injury report as injury report shows five injuries which is caused by sharp weapon.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation against the petitioners coupled with injury report and materials available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the present petitioners stands rejected.

However, if trial is not concluded within nine months from the date of receipt of this order, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkr/- U T