Sudhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35308 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2020 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SUDHIR KUMAR son of Ramshakal Prasad Resident of Village- Mahadeiya, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-02-2021 Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 159 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

The allegation as per the First Information Report is that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons assaulted the son of the informant by means of iron rod and also pressed the neck of the informant's son, due to which, he died. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties and he has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. Learned counsel referring to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35308 of 2020(3) dt.01-02-2021 2/3 Annexure-2 of the bail petition submits that the statement of wife of the deceased was also taken by the Police and from perusal of the same, it would be evident that the wife has not alleged that the petitioner has assaulted on the head of the deceased. Learned counsel referring to medical evidence submits that the deceased has died due to haematoma in the brain which cannot be caused due to the pressing of neck of a person.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to the case diary submits that the wife who happens to be an eye witness, has specifically stated that due to assault made by the co-accused Satya Narayan Prasad, the deceased fell on the ground and, thereafter, the petitioner assaulted the deceased with iron rod and allegedly pressed the neck of the deceased, due to which, he died and the postmortem report very well supports the allegation against the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35308 of 2020(3) dt.01-02-2021 3/3 However, if the trial does not show any progress, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T