Patna High CourtCR. MISC./85089/2019rejected

Chintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-18Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85089 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2019 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Chintu Singh Son of Pramod Singh Resident of Village - Jaitpur, P.S.- Badahia, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Matloob Rab ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for regular bail has been filed by the petitioner in connection with Badahiya P.S. Case No. 10 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner is stated to have fired from his pistol hitting the informant in his chest. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations are false and concocted and not supported by the injury report which has transpired in course of investigation. It is further submitted that the motive for the occurrence has not been explained and the place of occurrence is at the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 19.7.2019 and has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85089 of 2019(3) dt.18-03-2020 2/2 no criminal antecedent.

The application for bail has been opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that the petitioner happens to be the sole assailant. It is further submitted that the injury report has been incorporated in the case diary, from persual of which it would transpire that it fully supports the allegation as levelled in the F.I.R. and a grievous injury has been found caused by firearm.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the direct allegation against the petitioner which is supported by the injury report, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and as such, the application for bail is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U T