Allowed

Sushil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Aug 2019CR. MISC./31523/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna, through an oral order, confirmed the provisional bail granted by the lower court to the petitioner, who was apprehensive of arrest in a criminal case involving multiple IPC offences alleging false implication and a land dispute.

What did the court decide?

Provisional bail granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the petitioner pending in connection with Piyer Case No. 21 of 2018 was confirmed.

Sushil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31523 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2018 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

SUSHIL KUMAR Son of Umesh Mahto, Resident of Village- Bariarpur, Police Station- Piyer in the district of Muzaffarpur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

1. Pano Devi, wife of late Laxmi Rai, r/o. Vill. Fatullahpur, P.S. Piyer, District Muzaffarpur.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

======================================================

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Parasmani For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary

¶13

======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER

¶15

4 06-08-2019

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶17

learned APP.

¶18

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 341, 379, 380, 120(B), 420, 406,409, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Piyer Case No. 21 of 2018.

¶19

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the complaint based FIR has been filed in retaliation to Complaint Case No. 299 of 2017 filed by the petitioner’s father. The real dispute between the parties relates to harvesting of crop from the land claimed to be the property of the petitioner in the village of the complainant/informant. The allegation with regard to investment in Rose Valley Corporation

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31523 of 2019(4) dt.06-08-2019 2/2

¶21

on the inducement of the petitioner is denied. The petitioner

¶22

claims clean antecedents.

¶23

Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant appears and has been heard.

¶24

In that view of the matter, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 15.05.2019 pending in the Court of Ms. Romi Kumari, learned J.M.Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in connection with Piyer Case No. 21 of 2018 is hereby confirmed.

¶25

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶26

Chandran/-

¶27

U T

Sushil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Kumar Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Chaurasiya @ Parmeshwar Kumar Chaurasia Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Keshav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Sao @ Surendra Saw Vs the State of Bihar

Aditya Kumar Vs The State of Bihar