Praduman Kumar @ Praduman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.76017 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-473 Year-2017 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== PRADUMAN KUMAR @ PRADUMAN son of Suresh Prasad, Resident of Pakari Ara, P.S. Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 21-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 473 of 2017, instituted for the offence under Section(s) 324, 326, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It is alleged in the written report that on the date of occurrence informant along with his two friends namely Amit Kumar and Ravi Kumar were sitting on the stairs of market of his uncle. Petitioner along with two co-accused persons came on Pulser Motorcycle. Petitioner and Najim fired from the pistol causing firearm injury to the informant and his friends Amit Kumar and Ravi Kumar. Co-accused Rahul Kumar was driving the Motorcycle.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.76017 of 2018(3) dt.21-01-2019 2/2 Case diary has been received.

The injury report of informant and his friends are available in the case diary which shows that they all have sustained firearm injury, although, the Doctor has opined the injuries to be simple in nature.

It is mentioned in paragraph-3 of the bail petition that petitioner has criminal antecedent.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order because petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2017. Petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months in the event no substantive progress is made in the trial.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T