Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43344/2016rejected

Mukesh Singh @ Kantharha v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43344 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2016 Thana -CHARIABARIYARPUR DistrictBEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Mukesh Singh @ Kantharha S/o Late Ramashary Singh @ Munshi Singh, Resident of Village + P.S.- Cheria Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar -2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 29/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 387 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The informant alleged that he along with his brother was going on his motorcycle, but the petitioner and four other persons came on two motorcycles. The petitioner and Sonu Kumar are alleged to have fired which hit on the head and neck of the informant Chandramauli Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case as Urmila Devi,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43344 of 2016 (4) dt.09-01-2017 2/2 wife of the informant, filed complaint case against the informant Chandramauli Singh in which the petitioner is a witness and that is why the informant named the petitioner as assailant, but during course of investigation it appears that the informant and other witnesses have categorically stated that the petitioner and Sonu Kumar fired which hit on the head and neck of the informant and the doctor opined that both the injuries are grievous in nature. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T