Nikhil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8999 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2020 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Nikhil Kumar, Son Of Suman Pd. Singh, R/O Village- Bajalpura, P.S.- Teghra, Dist.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-07-2021 The matter has been taken up today for consideration through video conferencing.

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

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No.215 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 342, 379, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. The informant has alleged that based on some earlier dispute with some other accused persons. The petitioner came along with the other accused. There is allegation of firing upon the chest of the informant which has hit his arm. Petitioner's counsel submits that from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8999 of 2021(3) dt.22-07-2021 2/2 investigation, it is not clear that the petitioner has fired upon the informant. Petitioner is accused in one more case pending against him since before in which he is on bail and in the instant case he is in jail since 14.10.2020.

The submission is of false implication and that the motive has also been assigned to the co-accused persons. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the injured (informant) has specifically named the petitioner of having fired upon him. The injury is corroborated as a grievous firearm injury during the course of investigation and in medical examination.

Considering the rival submissions, this Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail. The same is rejected.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T