Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75022/2019bail rejected

Ritesh Kumar @ Majedar @ Rikesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-19Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75022 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2017 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Ritesh Kumar @ Majedar @ Rikesh Kumar, Son of Ramkaran Singh Resident of Village- Ramdiri, Tola- Ram Nagar, P.S- Matihani, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No. 117 of 2017, registered under Sections 326 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai.

The accusation is that at about 05.00 P.M., on 17.07.2017, informant Abinash Kumar was present at Thakurbari situated at Ramnagar Chowk, at that time, Ram Krishna Kumar and Ritesh Kumar @ Majedar (petitioner) came there boarding on without registration number motorcycle and, at that time, petitioner fired through pistol causing injury at his right leg and fled away.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75022 of 2019(3) dt.19-03-2020 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity and dirty village politics. Further submission is that petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2019 and after commitment, charge has already been framed on 26.02.2020.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the injury found on the person of informant is grievous in nature.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at present. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year incarceration.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T