← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41119/2020rejected

Dharmendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2021-04-08Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41119 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2020 Thana- NARAINPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Dharmendra Yadav Son of Sudhar Singh @ Sudhar Yadav R/o village- Ahile, P.s.- Narayanpur, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 08-04-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Narainpur P.S. Case no. 40 of 2020 registered under section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the petitioner fired at the informant which missed his head but the informant was hit with the bullet in his hand.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation as levelled in the F.I.R. are false and incorrect. Even otherwise the injury is on a non-vital part of the body. There is a land dispute between the parties. The petitioner is in custody since 1.7.2020, charge sheet has been submitted in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41119 of 2020(4) dt.08-04-2021 2/2 the case and he has no criminal antecedent.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the shot fired by the petitioner hit the informant in his hand, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the same is rejected. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail on completing one year in custody.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U T