Sadish Sharma @ Sudish Sharma @ Sudish v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 39499 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2020 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== SADISH SHARMA @ SUDISH SHARMA @ SUDISH Son of Basudev Sharma @ Vasudev Sharma Resident of Village- Budabe Ward No. 15, P.S.- Singheshwar, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms Veena Rani Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 09-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bhargama Police Station (for brevity PS) Case No 17 of 2020 dated 10.02.2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 400, 402, 307 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (a) (1A) (1AA) (1-B) ab, 26

(1) (2), 27 (1) (2) of Arms Act.

Allegation is that the police party have come on information regarding planning of dacoity. On reaching the place, the persons started fleeing away and have also opened fire. In the process, one Auto Driver sustained injury. The petitioner has been apprehended. On his search, one country made pistol and two live cartridges have been recovered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39499 of 2020(3) dt.09-03-2021 2/2 It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has remained in custody since 12.02.2020. In the investigation, it has surfaced that the firearm, possessed by coaccused Sunil Yadav, was found to have been used in the firing. The petitioner has falsely been implicated because he was at the vicinity.

Learned APP for the State has submitted that the allegation is of planning commission of dacoity, firing upon the police personnel and against the petitioner, there are at least four criminal antecedents.

Having regard to the submissions advanced by the parties, this Court, for the present, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T