This order considers an application for bail filed by Santu Paswan in a case alleging indiscriminate firing causing firearm injuries under the IPC and Arms Act. The High Court heard submissions and rejected the bail prayer.
Bail prayer 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 21236 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-514 Year-2015 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
SANTU PASWAN @ SANTU KUMAR S/o Ambika Paswan Resident of Village- Tiwari Chak, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
4 01-09-2020
As of now, the Courts have not resumed normal physical hearing. The matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual Court proceedings with the aid of audio visual technology.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Naubatpur Police Station (for brevity, PS ) Case No 514 of 2015 instituted for the offence punishable under Section (s) 326, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21236 of 2020(4) dt.01-09-2020 2/2
The prosecution case is that petitioner, along with two others, indiscriminately fired upon the informant causing several firearm injuries.
Petitioner’s counsel submits that first information report has been lodged after a delay of about 24 hours. Injuries, as alleged, are not corroborated by the discharge memo, that also of a private hospital. The petitioner, having no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 31.01.2020.
The learned APP for the State submits that the informant has suffered four firearm injuries. The allegation is of indiscriminate firing against the petitioner and two others.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, this Court, for the present, is not inclined to allow the petitioner’s prayer for bail. The same is rejected.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
M.E.H. /-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner seeking bail in a case involving indiscriminate firing with firearms should be granted bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SANTU PASWAN @ SANTU KUMAR
MADHURESH PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
