Pintu Singh @ Pawan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57421 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2024 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Pintu Singh @ Pawan Kumar Singh Son of Rampukar Singh Resident of village - Pipra, P.S.- Belaganj, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 61072 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2024 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Shibu Kumar @ Shiv Kumar S/o Sudarshan Ravidas @ Sudarshan Mochi R/o Village- Nandu Bigha, P.S.- Belaganj, Distict- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 61926 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2024 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Singh Son of Chandeshwar Singh @ Chandeshwari Singh @ Kongresi Singh R/o Village- Nandu Bigha, P.S.- Belaganj, DistrictGaya (Bihar) 2.
Shankar Singh @ Shankar Kumar Singh Son of Late Nageshwar Singh R/o Village- Nandu Bigha, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 57421 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anshul, Advocate Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh, Advocate Mr. Pusp Raj Singh, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 61072 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh, Advocate Mr. Pusp Raj Singh, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 61926 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
2/4 Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh, Advocate Mr. Pusp Raj Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-09-2024 Re: Cr. Misc. No. 57421 of 2024.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and others are said to have killed the deceased for demand of ransom.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence against the petitioner and the informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. He also submits that the petitioner is HIV positive for the last decade. The petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2024.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that it is the petitioner who has shot at the deceased.
6. Considering the serious allegation and the
3/4 antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. This application is dismissed.
Re: Cr. Misc. No. 61926 of 2024.
1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, learned
3. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons named in the FIR killed the deceased for demand of ransom.
4. The petitioner was a part of the criminal gang for demanding 'rangdari' as he was helping the accused with the location of the deceased and he has informed the criminals about the presence of the deceased in the shop. Shankar Singh has also participated in the killing of the deceased.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. This application is dismissed.
Re: Cr. Misc. No. 61072 of 2024.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
4/4
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and others are said to have killed the deceased for demand of ransom.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence against the petitioner and the informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2024.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. This application is dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) kiran/- U T