Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71203 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-570 Year-2022 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna ====================================================== Guddu Kumar Son Of Bijendra Prasad Resident Of Village - Dubhara, P.O. - Madpura, P.S. - Dhanarua, District - Patna, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhijeet Abhigyan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 12-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 570 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, while the informant along with his sons was going to court, in the meantime, two coaccused persons including this petitioner surrounded him. Coaccused Tunnu Kumar put out his pistol and fired upon son of the informant. Thereafter, this petitioner along with Mukesh Kumar also fired due to which son of the informant namely, Munna Kumar succumbed to injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71203 of 2023(3) dt.12-01-2024 2/2 been implicated in this case due to earlier dispute between the informant and the petitioner's brother. It is also submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 12.7.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR who along with co-accused Mukesh and Tunnu Kumar has specifically been alleged to fire upon the son of the informant due to which he succumbed to injury. Postmortem report of the deceased corroborates the prosecution case in which doctor opined the cause of death is due to shock & haemorrhage caused by Projectile Fire Arm injuries. It is also submitted that the 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 expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

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