Shivam Choudhary @ Kar Babu @ Shivam Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53613 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2023 Thana- VIDYAPATINAGAR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Shivam Choudhary @ Kar Babu @ Shivam Kumar Choudhary Son Of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary @ Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Village- Ashinchak PsDalsinghsarai Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mahendra Pratap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 01-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Vidyapatinagar P.S. Case No. 25 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Allegation against the petitioner along with one coaccused, namely, Ram Balak Pathak is that they opened fire upon the injured, namely, Uday Giri and Rohit Giri due to which they sustained gun shot injuries and the reason behind this as alleged occurrence is said to be previous dispute.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case due to previous dispute. Nothing incriminating article has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53613 of 2023(3) dt.01-11-2023 2/2 recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 20.03.2023. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in FIR and there is specific overt act of firing upon the injured persons against the petitioner and as per injury report, doctor opined that injuries of the injured persons caused by fire arm. Witnesses also supported the prosecution case and petitioner has several criminal antecedents.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T