Jhunu Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2170 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-648 Year-2019 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Jhunu Pandey S/O Prem Shankar Pandey Resident Of Village Shankar Saraiya, P.S-Turkauliya, District-East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-04-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No.648 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307, 302, 120B and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. Learned counsel submits that the there is no specific allegation of assault against this petitioner and his name has been brought in this case merely on suspicion. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2019 without there being any cogent material against him.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2170 of 2021(4) dt.13-04-2021 2/2 Learned APP for the State is present and has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein there is specific allegation that this petitioner and the co-accused had surrounded the deceased and open fire on him, the allegations getting support from the postmortem report which shows multiple fire-arm injuries causing death of the brother of the informant, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the materials on the record and the criminal antecedent pointing out against this petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is, thus, refused.

Let the trial be expedited.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.