Pravesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73308 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2022 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Pravesh Ram Son of Late Laxmi Ram R/O Vill - Parmanandpur, Ward No. 10,11, P.S. Murliganj, Distt. - Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP For the Informant : Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No.253 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 341, 307, 302, 120B, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons having armed with gun and pistol took the informant's son on the road forcibly and they fired one by one upon the informant's son due to which he died on the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73308 of 2023(3) dt.08-02-2024 2/2 case due to dirty village politics. The petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2023 having clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail of the petitioner stating that there is direct allegation for firing upon the informant's son against the petitioner, as a result of which the informant's son died on the spot. The medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. It is also submitted that regular bail of similarly situated co-accused Gautam Kumar has already been rejected by a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 24.02.2023 passed in Cr.Misc.No.62652 of 2022. Therefore, the petitioner also does not deserve privilege of bail.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the parties as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Harish/- U T