Abhishek Kumar @ Pampam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66566 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2021 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria ====================================================== ABHISHEK KUMAR @ PAMPAM SON OF ANANT SINGH R/O VILL.- SAKROHAR, P.S.- BELDAUR, DISTT.- KHAGARIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Beldour P.S. Case No.112 of 2021 dated 07.06.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

As per the prosecution, petitioner along with other co-accused persons came at the informant's house and started firing indiscriminately at the informant's father due to which he died.

4.

The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that though the petitioner is named in the FIR but against him there is no specific allegation, the informant's father was a veteran criminal and on account of enmity running in between the petitioner and the prosecution party, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66566 of 2022(3) dt.17-04-2023 2/2 5.

Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the petitioner was one of the assailants who committed the murder of the victim and during investigation the material witnesses supported the allegation concerned to the petitioner. 6.

Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the case diary of this case. The instant matter relates to murder of informant's father and the petitioner is named in the FIR and as per allegation this petitioner and four other co-accused persons came at the informant's house and started firing indiscriminately at the victim who sustained fire-arm injury resulting in his death and from the place of occurrence five shells of used bullets were recovered and during investigation material witnesses supported the allegation concerned to the petitioner. Considering all these facts and mainly the seriousness of the accusation appearing against the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner does not deserve to the privilege of bail. Accordingly, his bail prayer stands rejected.

7.

Petitioner may renew his bail prayer after Nine months, if no significant progress is made in his trial. (Shailendra Singh, J) sangam/- U T