Vinay Prasad @ Vinay Kumar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48589 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2023 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Vinay Prasad @ Vinay Kumar Prasad S/O Late Jagannath Prasad Resident Of Ward No. 25 (Malgodam Road), Station Road, East Grp, Ps. Town Samastipur, Dist. Samastipur, Bihar, 848101 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anil Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Ashok Kr. Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the case diary.
2. Pursuant to the earlier order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the court below has sent its report regarding stage of the case which is kept at Flag-E in which it has been stated that the charge has been framed on 05.01.2024 and the case is fixed for evidence of prosecution witness. It has further been stated that the expected time to conclude the trial of the case is six months.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 82 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 of the Indian
2/4 Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. As per allegation made in the F.I.R., the Informant along with her husband and her daughter had gone to Khatu Shyam Mandir for offering prayer. While the Informant was offering prayer, she heard sound of 4-5 round firing whereafter the Informant went there and saw that her husband was being carried out of the temple by 3-4 people in an injured condition. On query, he disclosed that when he opposed the petitioner, the petitioner opened fire from his licensed pistol 5-6 times on his chest and abdomen and fled away from there.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is a case and counter case between the parties. There is a free fight between the parties wherein the Informant's husband and others were the aggressors and the petitioner was just trying to defend himself. Both the parties are family members. He further submits that there is an ongoing land dispute between the parties and a civil suit is already pending between them. Charge has already been framed in this case. He further points out that actually the petitioner was brutally assaulted by the Husband of the Informant along with unknown persons for which Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 83
3/4 of 2023 was lodged against the prosecution party. The Informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.04.2023. The petitioner by way of filing supplementary affidavit has stated that the petitioner has altogether six criminal antecedents.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He submits that there is direct and specific allegation of firing against the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested at the spot with firearms. Counsel for the State has further stated that the injury report fully supports the prosecution case.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the rival submissions made by the parties and considering the fact that there is no likelihood of concluding the trial in near future as no witness has been examined till date, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 82 of 2023, subject to following conditions;
(i) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of
4/4 the family of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T