Brajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77157 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2021 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== BRAJESH KUMAR, Son of Arjun Pandey, R/o vill- Kishun Nagar, P.S.- Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-05-2024 Heard Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No. 262 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegedly while the husband of the informant was going to Kishun Nagar and when he reached near the house of Harendra Thakur, in the meantime, all the accused persons, who were already present there variously armed, on the exhortation made by the co-accused persons, the petitioner wiped out his pistol and shot at him.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the F.I.R. it is evident that there is no eye witness to the alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77157 of 2023(5) dt.10-05-2024 2/2 occurrence. However, only on account of a land dispute, the petitioner has been implicated in this case along with all the family members. He further drew the attention of this Court to the F.I.R. and submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of resorting to firing, however, it suggests two bullet injuries, thus the injury report does not corroborate the allegation. He next submits that the petitioner is a man of fair antecedent and he has been incarcerated since 28.09.2022.
5. On the other hand learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that specific allegation of firing has been levelled against the petitioner leading to grievous injuries.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the injury report, which corroborate the allegation of firing leading to two bullet injuries, this Court is not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stands rejected.
8. It is expected that the learned trial court shall expedite the matter and take all efforts to conclude the same. (Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T