Guddu Mehta @ Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Kr. Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58037 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2023 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Guddu Mehta @ Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Kr. Mehta S/o Manik Lal Mehta @ Maniklal Mehta R/o Sukkhashani, (Sukhasani) ward no. 12, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District-Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 27.03.2023, in connection with S.T. No. 285 of 2023 arising out of Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 86 of 2023, FIR dated 26.03.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per written report of the informant Rupam Kumari, allegation against the petitioner is that with intention to kill, he fired bullet on the head of the husband of informant Rupam Kumari, namely, Chandan Kumar when he had gone to sprinkle medicine on the mango-tree on 23.03.2023 at 05:00

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58037 of 2024(3) dt.20-09-2024 2/3 hours in the evening.

4. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47716 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there is specific allegation against this petitioner in the FIR but on perusal of the same, it appears that the FIR has been lodged after delay of three days without giving any details and therefore, it appears from the FIR that the informant has not assigned any motive in the FIR.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that a bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is direct allegation against this petitioner and apart from that the statement of the victim was recorded in paragraph 26 of the case diary clearly stated that the petitioner has fired upon him.

7. Vide order dated 09.08.2024, a report was called for from the concerned court with regard to the stage of the trial.

8. Vide report dated 23.08.2024, it reveals that the trial is going on and out of nine charge sheet witnesses, six witness have already been examined and the case is pending on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58037 of 2024(3) dt.20-09-2024 3/3 account of three fresh prosecution witnesses.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts, report of the trial Court and the allegation as alleged in the FIR, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jagdish/- U T