Patna High CourtCR. MISC./264/2024bail rejected

Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-19Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.264 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-489 Year-2022 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Rai Son of Munesh Rai @ Munesh Ray R/o vill - Khapura, P.S. - Bidupur, distt. - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Asha Devi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 19-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case no.489 of 2022, registered under sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, as a result of firing resorted to by the petitioner, the informant sustained gunshot injury in his leg.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is case and counter case between the parties, the correct version having been given in the counter case lodged by Sonu Kumar, FIR of which is Annexure-P2 to the petition. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.264 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2024 2/2 petitioner is in custody since 9.10.2023 and the alleged injury attributable to the petitioner has been found to be simple in nature. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the FIR and corresponding injury having been found on the informant though simple in nature, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or after framing of charge, whichever is earlier.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T