Birendra Dubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71371 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2022 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan ====================================================== BIRENDRA DUBEY Son of Late Sitaram Dubey R/V- Seni Chhapar, P.SMairwa, Dist- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 142 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120(B), 448, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is alleged to have shot fired upon the father of the informant which hit into his stomach as a result of which he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation, as alleged in the F.I.R., is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence. He further submits that this case is counter blast of Mairwa P.S. Case No. 277 of 2022 filed against the informant by one English Devi on account of the same, this petitioner has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71371 of 2022(4) dt.02-05-2023 2/2 dragged in this case. He further submits that there was no intention to kill the informant's father. He further submits that the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet in this case against the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 28.04.2022.

Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the basis of material available on record and the case diary, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation of firing made by the petitioner upon the father of the informant, who died on the spot. He further submits that during course of investigation several witnesses have supported the prosecution version and the same is being fully supported by the postmortem report.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the direct allegation of firing attributed to the petitioner and the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T