Princ Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1655 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2021 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== PRINC KUMAR Son of Viveka Rai Resident of Village- Raghunathpur, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal, District- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hare Krishna Prasad, Adv.

For the State :

Mrs.Gulnar Begum, APP For the Informant Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S. Kamal P.S. Case No. 189 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 325, 326, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that the petitioner along with his father, wife and Rubi Devi entered his house and injured his son by cutting his left ear and petitioner fired causing injury to the daughter of the informant near her waist, it is next alleged that occurrence

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1655 of 2022(2) dt.24-05-2022 2/3 was on account of land dispute amongst brother. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR it would manifest that dispute related to property amongst the brother on account of which the occurrence took place, it is next submitted that the firearm injury caused to the daughter of the informant is simple in nature.

The learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that it appears that the petitioner is a trigger happy person who does not even care before firing, it is next submitted that even if there was a dispute between the family that did not give any cause of action to the petitioner to fire at the injured but the learned counsel for the informant very fairly submits that no doubt the injury is simple in nature. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and the injury caused to the injured is simple in nature as recorded in the impugned order itself, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1655 of 2022(2) dt.24-05-2022 3/3 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with S. Kamal P.S. Case No. 189 of 2021 with a condition that one of the bailor shall be a close relative of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be released after framing of Charge. Further if the learned court below comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner, the court below shall forthwith cancel his bail bonds after recording reasons. (Satyavrat Verma, J) shahzad/- U T