Ramkeshwar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9274 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2020 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

RAMKESHWAR PRASAD Son of Late Bakhori Das Resident of Village - Puna, P.S. - Hilsa, District - Nalanda.

2.

Sarvesh Prasad Son of Ramkeshwar Prasad Resident of Village - Puna, P.S. - Hilsa, District - Nalanda.

3.

Varun Kumar Son of Ramkeshwar Prasad Resident of Village - Puna, P.S. - Hilsa, District - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Paras Nath For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 01-02-2022 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner no. 1 apprehending his arrest in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case no. 144 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is a case of committing murder to the husband of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9274 of 2021(3) dt.01-02-2022 2/2 the informant by firing shot on his head.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Only to save the skin from Hilsa P.S. Case No. 191 of 2020 in which grand-daughter of petitioner no. 1 had received bullet injury in her leg which was fired by the husband of the informant. There is case and counter case. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail. From perusal of the post-mortem report it appears that on the basis of CT scan of brain report injury is grievous in nature and fracture of squamous part of right temporal bone. There is direct allegation of firing shot on the husband of the informant which hit in his head, which is a vital organ. It is not fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is direct allegation of firing shot against the petitioner no.1, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U