Abhishek Kumar @ Abhishek Paswan @ Raja v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39239 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2019 Thana- NAANPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== ABHISHEK KUMAR @ ABHISHEK PASWAN @ RAJA SON OF DOMAN PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHORAUT, WARD NO 2, P.S.- CHORAUT, DIST- SITAMARHI ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyam Nandan Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 15-03-2021 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's Counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office.

Petitioner seeks bail in Nanpur PS Case No. 36 of 2019 registered under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Three unknown persons on a motorcycle have come to the victim and asked him for directions. After sometime two persons fired from their pistol on the victim and his fiend. The victim has sustained two bullet injuries; one on his right hand and other on the right side of his stomach.

The petitioner's implication in the instant case is based on the statement of co-accused who have been arrested during course of investigation namely Sarvesh Das.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that other than statement of co-accused there is nothing to connect the petitioner's

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39239 of 2020(4) dt.15-03-2021 2/2 implication in the instant case. The petitioner continues in custody now since nearly one and half years i.e. since 31.8.2019. He has been allowed bail in two out of four pending cases against him, mentioned in para 3 of the application.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that during investigation there has been statement of some witnesses to the effect that the petitioner was one of the persons who left the chit demanding Rangdari.

Considering the antecedent of the petitioner, this Court for the present is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U T