Abhinav Singh @ Abhinav Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2279 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1360 Year-2015 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== Abhinav Singh @ Abhinav Yadav Son of Sri Rajaram Singh Resident of Village- Indrahia, P.S.- Sasaram (Muffasil), District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Alexander Ashok For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-07-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 1360 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he along with Vivek Singh and Kapil Singh opened indiscriminate firing on Uday Singh, who suffered fire-arm injury. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that the accused persons did not stop firing until death of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that on exactly similar footing, co-accused Kapil Yadav @ Kapil Singh and Dhanjee
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2279 of 2024(5) dt.23-07-2024 2/2 Singh were granted bail by the co-ordinate Benchs of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2019 in Cr. Misc. No. 67031 of 2019.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with those accused persons, who have been granted bail by this Court as they were arrested in the year 2019 and they were facing trial at that time, whereas the petitioner remained absconding and the charges have recently been framed in the trial of the petitioner in the year 2024 itself.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T