Sunny Sony v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77346 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2019 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== SUNNY SONY, Son of Bhagawan Sah Resident of Village-Koria Haibatpur, Police Station-Muffasil, District-Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Kr Rai For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State through video conferencing.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 299 of 2019, registered under Sections 324, 307 and 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai.

The accusation is that on 13.06.2019, informant Anokhi Kumari was playing dance in the marriage ceremony of her cousin Aditya Raj, at that time, Sunny Sony (Petitioner), Pravin Sony boarding on red-black colour Pulsar motorcycle along with Ashok Sony and Annu Kumar @ Animesh boarding on white colour Apachy motorcycle having pistol in their hands came there and made eight round of firing. On hearing the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77346 of 2019(7) dt.06-07-2020 2/2 sound of firing, when she reached near her mother then saw her mother is lying dead sustaining fire arm injury. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while it would appear from the description of place of occurrence, four empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence, but only two fire arm injuries were found on the dead body of deceased. Moreover, no motive has been assigned in the First Information Report. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 15.06.2019.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail with submission that witnesses in paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 16 and 17 stated that all the four persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner, made firing in which mother of informant sustained firearm injury. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T