Ashok Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46713 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2018 Thana- PARWALPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Ashok Singh, S/o Late Raj Ballam Singh, Resident of Village- Dumri, P.S.- Parwalpur, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-08-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2018, for the offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 18.12.2018, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 68905 of 2018.

Case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is enmity between the parties.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is in custody since 04.09.2018 and other accused Sukhi Kewat has been granted privilege of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.07.2019, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 16661 of 2019.

Heard learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, who has opposed the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46713 of 2019(3) dt.28-08-2019 2/2 prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has confessed his guilt before the police and moreover, CDR details also shows that he had a talk with Sukhi Kewat and confessional statement disclosed that the case of the petitioner is different from the case of Sukhi Kewat. Further submission is that up till now the charge has not been framed in this case.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. However, once the charge will be framed and the case will progress further, he may be at liberty to move before this Court for renewal of his prayer. With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T