Sanjay Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57717 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2021 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Sanjay Mandal S/O Late Indradeo R/O Village-Meghua, P.S-Amarpur, District-Banka.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Anita Kumari Singh Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amarpur P. S. Case No.137 of 2021, instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 504/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.03.2021, he is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant alleges that on order of Vishnudev and Munni Devi, the petitioner fired hitting Dablu Mandal, brother of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57717 of 2021(2) dt.03-03-2022 2/2 informant on his chest and he fell down and died. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner never fired. He is a person with clean antecedent. Learned counsel further submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that why the petitioner would have fired on the order of Vishnudev and Munni Devi and the petitioner has been falsely implicated because of political dispute as is evident from the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is alleged to be the main assailant and informant is an eye witness to the occurrence. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T