Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86030 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-802 Year-2023 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Ajay Kumar Son of Mahendra Sahni @ Mahendra Chaudhary Resident of village- PNT colony, kidwaipuri ps- budha colony District -Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Hemant Ray, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 18-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No.802 of 2023 lodged under Sections 302 and 34 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against one named and other unknown accused persons with allegation that the informant has disclosed that his son was released from jail on 14.12.2023 and thereafter, he went to the barber shop and on 15.12.2023 at about 2:30 pm, one Kisan Kumar along with one unknown person have brought the informant's son in the state of unconsciousness and then the informant has taken his son to the hospital where the doctor declared him dead.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner's name has figured in this case only and only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86030 of 2024(2) dt.18-01-2025 2/2 by virtue of confessional statement of the accused persons.
5. Counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2023 having two criminal cases pending against him. He further submits that no purpose shall be served keeping the petitioner in custody.
6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the bail application of the other accused persons have been rejected vide order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.36014 of 2024.
7. Upon perusal of the records, it transpires that the case is not based only on confession rather cross-objection is also there, which has been well discussed in the rejection order of the other accused persons. In the rejection order of the sessions court, it transpires that it is the petitioner who has injected the injection to the deceased.
8. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
9. Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T