Dhundhun Kumar @ Amar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46718 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2023 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur ====================================================== DHUNDHUN KUMAR @ AMAR KUMAR SON OF RAJ KUMAR SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BALBHADRAPUR, P.S. - MUSARIGHARARI, DISTRICT - SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shubhesh Pandey, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anant Kumar 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 11-12-2024 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Musarigharai P.S. Case No. 162/2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 302/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. has been lodged against three named persons and eight to ten unknown accused persons including the present petitioner against whom there is an allegation that the accused persons have been assaulted and fired gun shot upon the son of the informant in which the informant's son has died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46718 of 2024(5) dt.11-12-2024 2/2 submits that he has clean antecedent. He further submits that the name of the petitioner has been figured in this case by confessional statement of the accused persons. Scuffling took place when all were playing cards. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner
6. From perusal of the paragraph no. 10, 11, 12 and 25 of case diary, it appears that the name of the petitioner has been figured in this and the allegation levelled against the petitioner in serious in nature.
7. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner and the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Sunnykr/- U