Pukka @ Ram Jugat Singh @ Ram Jugut Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29769 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -422 Year- 2016 Thana -BARAUNI District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. PUKKA @ RAM JUGAT SINGH @ RAM JUGUT SINGH, Son of Ram Charan Singh, Resident of Village- Kil, P.S.- Barauni (Garhara), DistrictBegusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar -2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 08-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 10.04.2017 in connection with Barauni (Garhara) P.S. Case No. 422 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that the petitioner had taken Rs. 20,000/- from the informant with a promise to return the same near Durgapuja but athereafter he showed difficulty in re-payment of the amount. On 29.10.2016 when the informant went at the door of the petitioner and demanded the borrowed money, the petitioner started firing from

his pistol which hit the informant on the abdomen. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal antecedent and the allegations are false and baseless as the medical report does not specify the injury on the abdomen, rather on the right hip which falsifies the prosecution case. He submits that although fardbeyan was recorded that also after five days of the occurrence but FIR was lodged after a lapse of 21 days and no plausible explanation has been given for such delay. He further submits that chargesheet has already been submitted hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in connection with Barauni (Garhara) P.S. Case No. 422 of 2016, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the

concerned police station, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioner and that petitioner will appear before the learned court below during trial as and when required and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds. (Nilu Agrawal, J) sushma/- U T