Roushan Jha @ Raushan Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67575 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2019 Thana- SHEOHAR District- Sheohar ====================================================== ROUSHAN JHA @ RAUSHAN JHA, Son of Vedanand Jha @ Bedanand Jha Resident of Village - Sugiya Katsari, P.S.- Sheohar, Distt - Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application for regular bail arises out of Sheohar P.S. Case No. 84 of 2019, disclosing the offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

There is allegation in the First Information Report that the informant was shot at from behind and the bullet hit his left thigh. The informant noticed the miscreants riding in a Motorcycle and identified them as the petitioner and co-accused Jangi Jha. He has alleged that it was Jangi Jha who had opened fire.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67575 of 2019(2) dt.11-12-2019 2/2 has submitted that since the allegation of shooting is against coaccused Jangi Jha, and there is no allegation of assault against this petitioner, the petitioner deserves regular bail, who is in custody since 28.06.2019.

From the First Information Report, however, it transpires that active participation of the petitioner in the occurrence has been alleged. Further, on perusal of paragraph-3 of the application, it appears that the petitioner is accused in so many criminal cases, some of them are serious in nature, which gives an indication, though tentative, that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

In such view of the matter, in my view, the case for grant of regular bail is not made out at this stage. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if in the meanwhile, there is no substantial progress in the trial.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) S.Ali/- U T