Patna High CourtCR. MISC./66872/2024dismissed

Yuvraj Kumar @ Yuvraj Singh @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-05Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66872 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2022 Thana- PHULWARIA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Yuvraj Kumar @ Yuvraj Singh @ Sonu Kumar Son of Rajeev Kumar Singh @ Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Singh Resident of Zemra, Police Station - Barauni, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Sanjeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-10-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10384 of 2024.

3. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 156 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The following order was passed on 22.02.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 10384 of 2024-:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 156 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 302/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals opened fire which injured 11 persons and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66872 of 2024(2) dt.05-10-2024 2/2 one person died in the occurrence. The petitioner had created terror on the national highway from Begusarai to Patna, and without any reason, he along with other criminals started firing indiscriminately injuring 11 persons out of whom 1 person died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.10.2022.

5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. This kind of criminal does not deserve bail, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

8. The trial is directed to be expedited.

5. No ground for review is made out.

6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

7. The court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U