Vikram Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65058 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2023 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui ====================================================== Vikram Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjay Kumar S/O Kapildeo Paswan Resident Of Gokul Chak Aliganj, Ps. Chandradip, Dist. Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 29-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2.The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Chandradip P.S. case No. 118 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is of opening fire upon the informant's sons namely, Raunak Kumar and Rocky Kumar due to which both of them sustained gun shot injury on their persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity arising out of land dispute. The informant is not an eye witness of the alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65058 of 2023(3) dt.29-01-2024 2/2 occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 25.07.2023.

5.Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that from perusal of prosecution case, there is direct and specific overt act against this petitioner who fired upon two sons of the informant due to which both of them got seriously injured. Further, the injury report also corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation, witnesses of this case supported the prosecution case.

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

7. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months, failing which, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T