Patna High CourtCR. MISC./84092/2023dismissed

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-10Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84092 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2022 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav Son Of Silayee Yadav R/O VillageParmanandpur (Ward No.11), P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 254 of 2022 dated 30.05.2022, lodged under Sections 147, 341, 302, 120-B, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against 10 named accused including the petitioner. The criminals came armed and fired at the prosecution party, thereafter, Vikash Kumar and Bhola Yadav fired from their rifle upon the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2023 having clean antecedent. He further submits that there is only one gun shot

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84092 of 2023(2) dt.10-01-2024 2/2 injury on the body of the deceased and therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that whether it is the petitioner or other co-accused, who has shot the deceased is a subject matter of thte trial. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has participated in the killing of the deceased.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

7. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner along with one accused had fired upon the husband of the informant.

8. Considering the aforesaid fact that one person had been killed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and therefore, the present bail application is hereby rejected.

9. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. If the trial is delayed, caused by the prosecution, the petitioner has liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) sadique/- U T