Ashok Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76832 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2024 Thana- KUNAULI District- Supaul ====================================================== Ashok Sharma, Son of Late Sukhdev Sharma, Resident of village- Haripur , P.S- Kunauli, Distt.- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-04-2025 Heard Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Kunauli P.S. Case No. 50 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner assaulted with kulhari on the head of the father of the informant due to which he died.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the case diary specifically para-7, it will transpire that the place of occurrence as described in the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76832 of 2024(5) dt.07-04-2025 2/2 is not that. It has also been submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and the occurrence has happened on trivial issue. A statement has been made in para-3 of the petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He is languishing in judicial custody since 11.05.2024.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the witnesses who have been examined during investigation, have supported the case and they have categorically stated that the petitioner assaulted the deceased who died due to the injuries. From perusal of the injury report also it is clear that cause of death was the antemortem injuries.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. Petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T