Niranjan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58807 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2020 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== NIRANJAN SINGH Son of Late Geero Singh Resident of Village- Khopria, P.S.- Chausa, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No. 237 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, 120B read with section 34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation, eight named accused persons, including the petitioner attacked the informant. Co-accused Shankar Singh fired shot, which hit the shoulder of the informant. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he fired shot at the chest of Suman Kumar Singh, who died at the spot. Vikky Singh also fired shot at Suman Kumar Singh, which hit his neck.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58807 of 2022(5) dt.29-04-2023 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Though there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he fired shot at the chest of the deceased Suman Kumar Singh, but the witnesses have stated that petitioner along with co-accused Vikky Singh and Suman Singh (accused) have fired shot at the deceased.

On the other hand, the learned APP Sri Shailendra Kumar has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner fired shot at the chest of the deceased. The allegation is corroborated by the post-mortem report. The deceased has received fire-arm injuries at his chest as well as on his neck. He has submitted further that independent witnesses in paragraph nos. 50, 51 and 52 of the case diary have supported the entire occurrence, including the allegation that the petitioner fired shot at the chest of the deceased.

In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Kundan/Nirmal U T