Gautam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62652 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2022 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Gautam Kumar Son Of Krishankant Yadav R/O Village- Parmanandpur, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surya Narayan Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 24-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 253 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 307, 302, 120B, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation in the FIR, the informant alleged that when his son was at door, in the meantime, the accused persons including the petitioner armed with gun and pistol and taken his son on the road forcefully. It is further alleged that on order of co-accused Krishnakant Yadav, the petitioner and other co-accused persons fired one by one upon the son of informant as a result of which his son was died on spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62652 of 2022(3) dt.24-02-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 13.6.2022. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of shot fire upon the son of informant against the petitioner. As per postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased is haemorrhage due to fire arms injuries and the same corroborates the prosecution case. Prosecution case has also been supported by the witnesses.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

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