← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59329/2023rejected

Rajkumar Singh @ Chintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-22Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59329 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-580 Year-2022 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Rajkumar Singh @ Chintu Singh S/O Late Ganesh Prasad Singh R/O VillageAdarsh Mohalla Triveniganj, Ward No. 18, Ps. Triveniganj, Dist. Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vaishnavi Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 22-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is languishing in custody in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 342, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently Section 302/34 I.P.C was also added.

It is a case of commission of murder of the husband of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. For the alleged occurrence of 17.12.2022, F.I.R was registered on 22.12.2022

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59329 of 2023(6) dt.22-01-2024 2/2 without explaining the delay. The postmortem report is not in consonance with the prosecution case. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 13.02.2023. In contra, A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that it is the specific allegation against the petitioner that he shot at the husband of the informant. The independent witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution as against the petitioner.

Considering the facts aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stands rejected.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shageer/- U T