Rajniti Singh @ Bhorik Singh@ Bhorik v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54380 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2019 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== RAJNITI SINGH @ BHORIK SINGH@ BHORIK Son of Nago Singh @ Nagendra Singh Resident of Village - Khanpur, P.S. - Didarganj, Distt. - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 08-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case No. 193 of 2019 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have fired upon the chest of the informant by his rifle due to which informant's father sustained gunshot injury. Thereafter, he was brought to hospital where doctor declared him dead.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute. By way of supplementary affidavit, it is submitted that all the witnesses

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54380 of 2023(3) dt.08-11-2023 2/2 including the informant have been examined and none of them have supported the case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and languishing in judicial custody since 5.6.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR who has specifically been alleged to fired upon the father of the informant due to which he died. The postmortem report of the deceased corroborates the prosecution in which doctor opined that cause of death is due to injuries caused by firearm weapon. It is also submitted that witnesses of the case have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the specific allegation of firing against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of four months, failing which, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Manishkr/- U T