Single bench order rejecting bail application. Court held that despite counter-case injuries, the FIR alleged direct firing and history of enmity makes the petitioner undeserving of bail.
Bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.70335 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2017 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Braj Kishore Singh, S/o Late Kedar Singh, Resident of Village-Akauna, P.S.Obra, District-Aurangabad (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arya Achit Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar For the State : Sri Mukeshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER
5 14-02-2019
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner is in custody since 21.03.2018 in connection with Obra P.S. Case No.120 of 2017 registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 504, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that though the allegation against the petitioner is specific of having fired, there is case and counter case between the parties with injuries having been inflicted on both sides.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that there was land dispute and enmity between
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.70335 of 2018(5) dt.14-02-2019 2/2
the parties, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.
Learned counsel for the informant has also present and submit that the petitioner being a main assailant is not deserving the privilege of any bail order as it would definitely create complication and there is history of enmity between the parties.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State after perusal of the case diary submits that the act of the petitioner of having fired directly on the victim has been stated in the FIR itself and, therefore privilege of bail may not be extended to the petitioner.
Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is rejected.
(Anjana Mishra, J)
sanjeev/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged under IPC 302, 307, and Arms Act in a case involving a land dispute and counter-case injuries.
Whether the specific allegation of firing warrants rejection of bail despite injuries on both sides.
Whether history of enmity and status as a main assailant precludes bail.
Braj Kishore Singh
The State Of Bihar
Anjana Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
