Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48296 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2022 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== RAJESH YADAV @ RAJESH KUMAR SON OF BIJAY YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - MAHULI, P.S. - MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - MUNGER ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indu Bhushan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-08-2023 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.400 of 2022 dated 03.11.2022 registered for the offence/s punishable under Section/s 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that altogether 14 persons including the petitioner have been named in the FIR but against any of them there is no specific allegation and the allegation of firing and causing fire-arm injuries to the informant's brother and another person namely Sumit Kumar is a general and omnibus and the injuries of the said injured persons have been discussed in the order impugned which goes to show that both the said injured

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48296 of 2023(2) dt.03-08-2023 2/2 persons sustained simple injuries. Further submissions are that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 22.01.2023 and against him the investigation has been completed and the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against him and at the place of occurrence any used cartridge was not recovered and the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. 4.

Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the bail prayer.

5.

Considering the above submissions and mainly the facts that against the petitioner there is no specific allegation and 14 persons including the petitioner have been named in the FIR and also taking into account the petitioner's custody period and against him the investigation has been completed, in my opinion, in the said circumstances the petitioner deserves to the privilege of bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above be released on bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.400 of 2022 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Shailendra Singh, J) sangam/- U T