In this oral order, the Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The court refused bail despite the petitioner's claims of false implication and army service, but directed that if the petitioner surrenders and seeks bail, the matter will be reconsidered favorably.
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.28664 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2020 Thana- BARH District- Patna
======================================================
MUNNA KUMAR @ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA SINGH @ FAUJI S/O SACHITANAND SINGH R/O VILLAGE-SHAHRI, P.S-BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Parashuram Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2022
Heard Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 176 of 2020 dated 21.05.2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The petitioner is said to have fired from his weapon which hit the neck of the victim. This was done on the exhortation of his father.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only two days prior to the occurrence, he had come back from duty of Army. He has falsely been implicated in this case.
In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the period
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28664 of 2021(3) dt.20-01-2022 2/2
that the petitioner had moved for anticipatory bail in this case, the other accused persons were chargesheeted and were put to trial. The trial was concluded within a fortnight as no prosecution witness supported the case and all of them were declared hostile. In fact, some of the witnesses have gone on to state before the trial court that the accusation against the accused persons is absolutely false. Those accused persons have been acquitted and no appeal against the aforesaid acquittal is pending before the superior court.
Be that as it may, taking into account the accusation against the petitioner of firing from his weapon which hit the victim, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and seeks bail, the grounds noted above and the fact that the petitioner is serving in the Indian Army and that there could be a possibility of false implication, shall be taken into account and an order shall be passed without being prejudiced by the fact that the present petition on his behalf has not been entertained.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
krishna/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with offences under Sections 341, 307, 504, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Whether the petitioner's service in the Indian Army and possibility of false implication justify granting bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Munna Kumar @ Munna Kumar Singh @ Munna Singh @ Fauji
The State of Bihar
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
