Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2737/2018rejected

Gopal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-03-08Mr. Justice Arun Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2737 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -579 Year- 2017 Thana -BARBIGHA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Gopal Kumar, S/o Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh, R/o Village Mafo, P.S. Mehus, District- Sheikhpura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinkar Kuarm, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s ; Dr. Anjani Pd.Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in connection with Barbigha P. S. Case No. 579 of 2017, registered under Sections 323, 341, 387, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/37 (b) of Arms Act.

Allegation in brief is that the petitioner along with other accused threatened the informant for not giving the evidence in the earlier case, lodged against him for which the informant is one of the witness, otherwise he would done to death and when the informant started to flee away, they fired on the informant but any how the local people assembled there and apprehended the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2737 of 2018 (3) dt.08-03-2018 2/2 petitioner with country made pistol and produced him before the police.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to local village rivalry, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he is in custody since 26.11.2017.

Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner was giving threatening for not giving evidence and he has got eight criminal antecedents, all are of serious nature. Having considered the said facts and circumstances, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Barbigha P. S. Case No. 579 of 2017.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arun Kumar, J) Sudha/- U T