Sushil Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8287 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2018 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== SUSHIL SINGH SON OF LATE BANGALI SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PARIHARA P.S- BAKHRI, DISTT- BEGUSARAI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

APP For the Informant : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 30-06-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant through video conferencing.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bakhri P.S. Case no. 14 of 2018 registered under sections 302, 120 B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation in the F.I.R., it is stated by the informant that while he along with his brother were going on two separate motorcycles, the nine named accused persons including the petitioner herein, variously armed, started to fire on his brother. Accused Vinay Sah fired on his brother's chest while three other accused persons including the petitioner herein shot his brother

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8287 of 2021(3) dt.30-06-2021 2/2 in the head.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. are false and concocted which could be evident from perusal of the postmortem report, wherein only one injury in the head has been found while the allegations of firing is against three persons. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.8.2018 and his case stands on a better footing to that of co-accused Vinay Sah, who has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.10.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26553 of 2020.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner, as also the contents of the postmortem report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T