Ram Bali Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69548 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2023 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ram Bali Paswan S/O Late Hari Paswan R/O Village- Reva, P.S- Saraiya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No. 139 of 2023 lodged under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against 4 named accused persons against whom the allegation is that they have attacked on the informant with duly weapon and also started abusing the informant and subsequently, assaulted him by iron rod on non-payment of demanded money.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2023. He further submits that the alleged injury is on the body of the informant, namely, Surendra Ram. Counsel submits that he has annexed injury report vide Annexure-2 of the writ petition in which

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69548 of 2023(2) dt.01-11-2023 2/2 injury is simple in nature.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the specific allegation against the petitioner that he has fired pistol shot on the informant due which the informant injured and treatment is going on in S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur. He further submits that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean. There are 5 criminal cases pending against the present petitioner and while granting bail, this aspect must be taken into consideration.

6. Upon specific query whether charge has been framed or not. Counsel submits that as per his knowledge, charge has not been framed till date.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 6 months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T