Sunil Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52987 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2021 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== SUNIL SINGH SON OF LATE UCHIT SINGH R/O SHABHANI, P.S.- SURAJGARHA, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajnish Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-05-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 43 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation, co-accused Goda Devi stopped the tractor driven by the deceased. The other accused named persons named in the FIR came there. The specific allegation against coaccused Subodh Singh and the petitioner is that they fired shot at the deceased.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mother of the deceased was examined as PW-1 in Sessions

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52987 of 2022(5) dt.18-05-2023 2/2 Trial No. 113 of 2021. Though her examination-in-chief, she has stated that Sunil Singh and the petitioner had fired shot at her son but in cross examination, she has stated that her son received injury by fire-shots, committed by co-accused Subodh Singh. On the other hand, the learned APP Sri Shailendra Kumar has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the witnesses in paragraph nos. 5, 6, 27 and 28 of the case diary have stated that the petitioner had also fired shot at the deceased. The injuries are corroborated by the medical evidences. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Kundan/Nirmal U T