Dyalu Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56304 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2024 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna ====================================================== Dyalu Singh Son Of Tokhi Singh Resident Of Village - Chanda, Police Station - Athmalgola, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arun, Advcoate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18-11-2024 Heard Mr. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 05.04.2024 by the informant, Sita Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while she was in conversation, the petitioner came in an inebriated state and after shouting to kill her, opened fire which hit her thigh, ran towards safety and subsequently, she was taken to hospital. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the exaggerated FIR is/are there, inasmuch as they have land
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56304 of 2024(4) dt.18-11-2024 2/2 dispute and only to implicate, the FIR has been lodged. He has remained in custody for six months.
5. Mr. Bharat Bhusan Bhardwaj, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer submitting that a perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioner has been alleged to open fire. He has also taken this Court to para-3 of the petition to submit that the petitioner is also accused in the same nature of cases earlier.
6. Considering the submissions put forwarded by the parties as also the allegation that has come against him of opening fire causing injury to a lady, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner for the present.
7. The present bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Amandeep/- U T