Santosh Kumar @ Badshah @ Santosh Kamat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58339 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2022 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Santosh Kumar @ Badshah @ Santosh Kamat S/O Pitamber Kamat Resident Of Purani Durga Mandir, Nagar Parishad Ward No- 11, Police Station And Distt.- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh For the Informant Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 09-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Supaul PS Case No. 254 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 448, 504, 506, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the FIR, there was some dispute between the son of the informant and petitioner namely, Santosh Kumar. Petitioner and other accused persons forcibly brought her son outside the house. Other accused persons caught hold her son and petitioner stabbed knife in his chest. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is cousin of the deceased. Other accused persons has already

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58339 of 2023(3) dt.09-10-2023 2/2 been granted regular bail vide order dated 9.1.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44797 of 2022. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.3.2022.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant and submitted that there is direct allegation of stabbing against the petitioner, so he is the main assailant. Medical report corroborates the prosecution story. During investigation, several witnesses have supported the FIR version.

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

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U