← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45679/2018dismissed

Bittu Yadav @ Bittu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-09-11Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45679 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Bittu Yadav @ Bittu Kumar Son of Ramashis Yadav@ Ram Ashish Ray Resident of New Karbigahiya, P.S. Jakkanpur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nand Kishore Pd ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2018 Heard the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in Jakkanpur P.S.Case No.92 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 307, 120-B/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act Allegation against the petitioner and others is of firing on the injured causing severe injuries.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that falsity appears in this case from the fact that neither the injured has been examined in any Government Hospital nor any authentic injury report has been submitted and a fake injury report has been submitted without name of doctor and hospital. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Heard learned A.P.P. also as well as the informant who opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner stating that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45679 of 2018 (3) dt.11-09-2018 2/2 petitioner along with other co-accused caused grievous injury on the abdomen of the injured which appears from the perusal of the injury attached with the case diary that two metallic bullets were found present in pelvic cavity which also supports the prosecution case.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As such, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) AnilKrSinha/- U