Mukul Prasad @ Mukul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73273 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2024 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Mukul Prasad @ Mukul Kumar S/o Late Kailash Singh R/o Tarahua Tola, Bala Bigha, P.S.- Makhadumpur, District- Jehanabad, State- Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Makhadumpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that when the informant along with his family members were sitting at their house, all the accused persons including the petitioner came at their house variously armed and on the order of the co-accused Ajit Kumar, this petitioner fired upon the informant which hit on his left belly and later on he was taken up for treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire prosecution

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73273 of 2024(2) dt.22-11-2024 2/2 story is false and fabricated and petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that there is specific allegation of firing upon the informant attributed to the petitioner as evident from the injury report and, therefore, learned APP prays that the petitioner may not be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also there being specific allegation against this petitioner of firing upon the informant which is corroborated by the injury report, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T