Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41441/2024rejected

Suninl Yadav @ Kalra v. The State Of Bihar

2024-06-27Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41441 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2022 Thana- MANPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Suninl Yadav @ Kalra S/o Late Rambali Yadav R/O Village Makduane P.S Manpur District Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-06-2024 Heard Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 13.10.2022, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 194 of 2023 arising out of Manpur P.S. Case No. 222 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 10.09.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 115, 302, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-b) a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he fired upon Budhan Yadav which hit on his chest in left side and consequently he fell down and died at the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41441 of 2024(2) dt.27-06-2024 2/2 implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the informant is own agnates of the petitioner and due to some previous dispute the present occurrence had taken place.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the petitioner is the main assailant and he has fired upon the victim and the victim died at the spot.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 194 of 2023 arising out of Manpur P.S. Case No. 222 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T