Patna High CourtCR. MISC./68267/2022rejected

Sunil Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2023-09-06Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68267 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-329 Year-2021 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia ====================================================== SUNIL MANDAL SON OF LATE RAM DEV MANDAL R/O VILLAGEBELLA PEMU, DARGAH TOLA KANTA, P.S.- BARHARA (RAGHUBANSH NAGAR O.P.), DISTRICT- PURNEA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Giri For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of killing the wife of the informant, when she went out from her house to get grass.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that the allegation of shooting on the head of the deceased has been assigned to two accused persons namely petitioner and co-accused Madhav, whereas, the postmortem report does not supported the prosecution case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68267 of 2022(4) dt.06-09-2023 2/2 Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.07.2022.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that there is specific overt act of opening fire upon the informant's wife is against the petitioner and co-accused Madhav, due to which she succumbed to injury. He further submitted that the postmortem report has also corroborated the prosecution case and the doctor opined that the death was caused by firearms injury. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U