Kamlesh Paswan @ Kamal Jee v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55118 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2016 Thana- BARABAR TOURIST District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Kamlesh Paswan @ Kamal Jee, S/o Chandrika Paswan, resident of VillageFatehpur, P.S.- Mahkar, Dist.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Neeraj, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. ABHAY KUMAR - 1, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2017 Heard Sri Nitya Nand Neeraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhay Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

This is third attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Barabar Paryatan P.S. Case No.23/2016 (arising out of S.T.No.443 of 2016/129 of 2016) registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148,149, 323, 341, 435, 307,386 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 C.L.C. Act and under Sections 16,17,18,18(a),20 of the U.A.P. Act, 1967.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during trial, the informant was examined as P.W.1, however he turned hostile and, as such, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the changed circumstance for renewing the prayer for bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55118 of 2017(2) dt.22-11-2017 2/2 Sri Abhay Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, opposing the prayer for bail, submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was initially rejected, primarily on two counts; firstly seriousness of accusation and secondly criminal antecedents of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is also accused of serious offence like the present case and due to the said reason, twice the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.

The Court is of the opinion that though the informant turned hostile during trial, fact remains that he was examined as P.W.1 and this Court, while hearing the bail petition, may not appreciate the evidence, which has been brought on record before this Court. During the trial, appreciation of evidence may be seen by the trial court not by this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands again rejected.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T