Mukul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10426 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2023 Thana- MALAYPUR District- Jamui ====================================================== Aditya Kumar Singh SON OF ARUN SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SIRSI, PS- BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT- PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Umesh Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Malaypur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2023 registered under Sections 341, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 15.03.2023 by the informant, Ashok Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that when his wife was alone, the petitioner arrived, searching for his son, Manish. Soon his son also arrived and after abusing him as to why they have solemnized the marriage of the sister of another person, he took out a pistol and fired it at his son which hit in his abdomen. As the accused reiterated, Manish was taken to Sadar Hospital and then referred to Patna. Accordingly, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10426 of 2024(3) dt.18-04-2024 2/2 FIR.
4. In this case, a co-ordinate Bench had called for the case diary on 22.02.2024 which has since been received.
5. Learned APP for the State has taken this Court to the injury report which shows that 3 c.m X 2 c.m. injury has been found near lower chest. He has also taken this Court to paragraph nos. 141 and 148 of the case diary, it clearly shows that processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. happened.
6. Considering the allegation that has come against the petitioner of firstly abusing the informant's side only because they have solemnized marriage of their daughter to a different family and she opened fire upon the informant's son causing injury, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U T