Patna High CourtCR. MISC./70347/2024bail rejected

Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar Gulshan v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-17Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70347 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2024 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar Gulshan Son of Dinakar Prasad Resident of Village- Naya Tola, Raghopur, PS- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 339 of 2024 dated 13.06.2024 registered under Section 147 / 148 / 149 / 302 / 120-B of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution story on 12.06.2024 at 16:15 P.M. near the house of the co-accused / Gauri Rai the informant saw that Biru Rai and the petitioner were abusing the son of the informant and both sons of Gauri Rai were holding the hand of the informant's son and when the informant ran to save his son, Gauri Rai fired upon the chest of the son of the informant by pistol who subsequently died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation of firing is not upon the petitioner and the only

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70347 of 2024(4) dt.17-01-2025 2/2 allegation against him is that he was abusing the deceased at the time of occurrence. He further submits that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and he was working in his poultry farm.

5. Having regard to the submission made by the parties, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the fact that the petitioner was also present at the place of occurrence along with the co-accused persons and he was surrounding and abusing the deceased and the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of five cases, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer for the same is rejected.

6. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after nine months from today if the trial does not record any substantial progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T