Mithlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56089 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2022 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== MITHLESH KUMAR Son of Bhola Mahto Resident of VillageMohaddinagar, Police Station - Halsi, District - Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabi Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-04-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Halsi P.S. Case No. 48 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The informant is son of the deceased. As per allegation, when his father was returning from his field with bundles of paddy crop and when he reached near middle school, the miscreants murdered him by inflicting knife blows and fired shot on him. The petitioner, along with co-accused Manish Kumar opened fire on his father, which hit at the head of the father of the informant and one bullet hit Saryug Thakur at his thigh. The miscreants, thereafter, fled away from the seen of the occurrence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56089 of 2022(4) dt.17-04-2023 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Charges have been framed and the trial is going on. He has submitted further that injured Saryug Thakur, in his statement contained in paragraph no. 26 of the case diary has stated that he was returning by bicycle, whereas the informant has not mentioned that Saryug Thakur was returning by bicycle. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he fired shot at the deceased, which hit at his head and even the injured witness Saryug Thakur has also stated that the petitioner fired shot at the head of the deceased and committed his murder.

In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the matter and take all the endeavors to dispose of the trial as early as possible.

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