Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88639 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2023 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Rohit Kumar S/o Pawan Singh @ Pawan Kumar R/o Village_ Srirampur Thuthi, P.S.- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No.560 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 26, 25(1-B)(a) and 35 of the Arms Act. 3.

Allegation against the petitioner is to have made open firing indiscriminately at village Dusmaria Bujurg, Main Road and fled away towards his home.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88639 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 2/2 present petitioner rather country made pistol and magazine has been recovered from the house of the petitioner, which is in the joint possession. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2024.

5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6.

In view of the submissions, as made above, as the mother of the petitioner, namely, Rita Kumari is witness of seizure list and as one country made pistol along with magazine has been recovered from the house of the petitioner, where petitioner ran away from the house at the time raid and as petitioner is also involved in another 06 cases, where, lots of cases are serious, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at present.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

8.

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail of the petitioner after completion of one year custody.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) S.Katyayan/- U T