Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39624/2022rejected

Rahul Verma @ Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Raj v. The State Of Bihar

2023-04-28Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39624 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2020 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rahul Verma @ Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Raj Son Of Munna Sardar @ Munna Verma @ Satendra Varma Resident Of Village - Indira Nagar, Bhawanipur Jirat, Ward No. 20, P.S.- Chhatauni, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 28-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is languishing in custody in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It is alleged against the petitioner that he shot at the informant and his friend Vikash @ Kishan as a result of which, they sustained gunshot injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. There is no eye witness to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39624 of 2022(4) dt.28-04-2023 2/2 the occurrence. During investigation, no cogent material evidence was collected against the petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 20.11.2021. Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he shot at the informant and his friend, as a result of which, they sustained gunshot injuries. The injury report corroborates the case of the prosecution.

Considering the fact that there is specific accusation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stands rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shageer/- U T