Patna High CourtCR. MISC./68644/2021bail rejected

Kamta Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2022-07-27Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68644 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2021 Thana- CHAORI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== KAMTA SINGH Son of Kamakhya Singh Resident of Village - Dego Dihari, P.S. - Charpokhari, District - Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chauri P.S. Case No. 87 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation, when the informant was making ridges for irrigation of his field, twelve named accused persons came there and started opening fire. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he opened fire on the person of the informant and he sustained firearm injuries on his hand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68644 of 2021(2) dt.27-07-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent. There is dispute between both the parties and the FIR has been lodged after fifteen days.

There is specific allegation on the petitioner that he opened fire which hit the informant. On the person of the informant multiple penetrating wound, blackening around and inverted blood oozing was found. The injuries were caused by firearm. As such, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T