Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17392 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -53 Year- 2014 Thana -GANGABRIDGE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Rai S/o Surendra Rai Resident of Village Saifpur Terasia, P.S. Ganga Bridge, District Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kr.Panday(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02/ 30-09-2015 The petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 53 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 504, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. The prosecution case is that in the background of dispute with regard to a passage the brother of the informant was surrounded by Arvind Rai and Binod Rai when he escaped from the scene, came to his house and informed to the informant thereafter all the FIR named accused persons including twelve unknown arrived at the house of the informant and started

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17392 of 2015 (02) dt.30-09-2015 2/2 making indiscriminate firing causing injury to Arvind Rai, the nephew of the informant. It is alleged that the petitioner lastly fired at the nephew of the informant whereas Sunil Rai assaulted with sickle on the head of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner alleged to be last person to have fired but post-mortem report reflects only one firearm injury. The above contention of the petitioner was considered at the time of consideration of earlier bail application. Hence, this Court finds no fresh material to consider the second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T