Sujit Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55397 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2024 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Sujit Kumar Yadav Son Of Binda Yadav R/V-Village- Charkawan Nichladih, Ps- Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 341, 379, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The petitioner is said to have fired three rounds upon the informant which hits in his chest, stomach and hand. The Informant further alleged that the accused persons have also snatched golden chain and cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. No incriminating article has been recovered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55397 of 2024(3) dt.20-09-2024 2/2 from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he is languishing in judicial custody since 17.05.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR. There is specific allegation against this petitioner that he fired upon the informant due to which he sustained injuries in different parts of body, which corroborates the prosecution case. He further submitted that petitioner has also been made accused in five more cases. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

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

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Arish/- U T