Srikant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69647 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani ====================================================== Srikant Kumar Son of Bunilal Bhagat Resident of Village- Rajwara, PSSahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation, some miscreants were stealing out diesel from the truck. The informant saw the miscreants and when he intervened, one of the miscreant fired shot at him and when the guard attempted to catch the miscreant, one of the miscreants fired at his stomach.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Nothing was recovered from his possession and his name has figured in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69647 of 2024(4) dt.07-02-2025 2/2 confessional statement of co-accused Om Prakash Kumar. He has further submitted that co-accused Om Prakash Kumar has stated in confessional statement that co-accused Vinay Kumar fired at the deceased.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that though this petitioner is not the direct assailant of the deceased but the statement of co-accused Om Prakash Kumar shows that he was also among the perpetrators of the crime and the tower location of the mobile was found near the place of occurrence. He has further submitted that the petitioner has a criminal history relating to Arms Act and NDPS Act.

6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T