Patna High CourtCR. MISC./61027/2018rejected

Mithilesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2018-10-31Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.61027 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -75 Year- 2016 Thana -AGIAON BAZAR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Mithilesh Singh, Son of Chandarma Singh, R/o Village- Kukurahan P.S.- Agiaon Bazar, District Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-10-2018 Heard the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Trial No.161of 2017 arising out of Agiaon Bazar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504, 120(B), 302 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Allegation as per the F.I.R. is that on account of earlier altercation on 18.12.2016 between the father of the informant and the petitioner along with other co-accused persons on the point of keeping paddy in khalihan at 6.00 P.M. all the named accused persons including the petitioner came there and called the father of the informant and when he came out of his house all the accused persons including the petitioner started abusing and assaulting him and accused Ramji Singh and Shatrughan Singh ordered to kill

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.61027 of 2018 (3) dt.31-10-2018 2/2 him upon which the petitioner fired on the father of the informant causing injury in his neck. Thereafter victim was rushed to the Sadar Hospital from where he was referred to the P.M.C.H. Patna. Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion due to previous enmity.

He is in custody since 02.01.2017 having no criminal antecedent. Heard the learned A.P.P. also who opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Having heard both sides and in view of the nature of allegation I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, after completion of one year in jail custody of the petitioner, he may renew his prayer for bail. (S. Kumar, J) AnilKrSinha/- U