Nand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42857 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-384 Year-2021 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria ====================================================== NAND KUMAR S/O RAJENDRA YADAV Resident of villageBhikharighat, P.S.- Alauli, District- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indrajit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 11-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 307, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)a/26/35 and 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation in the FIR, on getting secret information of whereabout of Nand Kumar, an accused of Alauli P.S. Case No. 134 of 2019, police party proceeded there and on seeing the police party, petitioner and one another person tried to escape by making fire. In retaliation police party also started firing which hit on right thigh of the petitioner and another managed to escape. From his possession one country made pistol and 13 live cartridges and one empty cartridge were recovered from the basa of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42857 of 2022(3) dt.11-01-2023 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner rather the same were planted one due to high handedness of the police. Petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2021.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant and submitted that during investigation several witnesses have supported the prosecution case in para 13,14,31 of the case diary, which is also mentioned in the impugned order.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial as early as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U