Abhinav Singh @ Abhinav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79847 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2022 Thana- MANSURCHAK District- Begusarai ====================================================== Abhinav Singh @ Abhinav Kumar Son Of Nalesh Singh @ Nalesh Kumar Singh @ Nilesh Singh R/O Village- Samsa Ward No. 6, P.S.- Mansurchak, Dist.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 29-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Mansoorchak P.S. Case No. 74 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Section 302, 380, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner along with co-accused persons is of committing robbery from house of the informant and while committing so, killed the informant's husband by shot fire.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has got no criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79847 of 2023(4) dt.29-02-2024 2/2 antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition and he is languishing in judicial custody since 18.8.2022.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR who has specifically been alleged to commit murder of the informant's husband by shot fire. Postmortem report also corroborates the prosecution case in which doctor opined the cause of death is due to Haemorrhageic and Neurogenic shock as a result of injury caused by projectile firearm. It is also submitted that the witnesses of the case have fully supported the prosecution version.

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

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Amandeep/- U T