Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51564/2021dismissed

Saket Singh Guddu @ Saket Singh @Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

2022-04-20Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51564 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2021 Thana- PASRAHA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Saket Singh Guddu @ Saket Singh @Guddu S/o Late Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh @ Sampat Singh Resident of Village- Parsraha, P.S.- Pasraha, DistrictKhagaria. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 20-04-2022 Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.6.2021 in connection with Pasraha P.S. Case No. 52 of 2021 under sections 341, 323, 326, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

As per prosecution story, the informant was intercepted by the accused persons and after abusing him the petitioner herein opened fire injuring his face. Further allegation is that he made second attempt but the informant was able to hide behind one of the petitioner's associates, namely, Nripendra Singh and the bullet hit him. The informant further alleged that he thereafter had (Mar-Pit) with the petitioner which led to the opening of firing by the petitioner's pistol which hit

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51564 of 2021(5) dt.20-04-2022 2/2 him too. All of them when treated in a Nursing home where Nripendra Singh succumbed to his injury.

The case diary was called for and the learned APP Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh after going through it submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted by the police considering the case to be true. Although, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code does not find place in the charge-sheet.

Going by the facts that the role of firing that has been assigned to the petitioner is specific, this Court for the present is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail which is hereby rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T