Dismissed

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Nov 2022CR. MISC./29042/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for regular bail for murder and offences under the Arms Act. The High Court heard rival submissions regarding witness identification and amended allegations against the petitioner. The court refused to enlarge the petitioner, noting the eye-witness presence during the firing incident.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's bail application dismissed; custody not enlarged.

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29042 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2020 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur

¶3

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

¶4

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar Son Of Lalan Singh R/F- Village- Karath, P.S.- Tarari, Dist.- Bhojpur

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 09-11-2022

¶12

Heard Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned counsel

¶13

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

¶15

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Session Trial No.116 of 2021, arising out of Tarari P.S. Case No.227 of 2020, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed murder of the father of the informant.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in custody for nearly two years and the records reveals that in course of trial, the eye-witness namely Lal Bahadur Singh had filed Complaint Case No. 697 of

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29042 of 2022(4) dt.09-11-2022 2/2

¶19

2020 that Kariya Singh had fired upon the father of the informant and not the present petitioner Amit Kumar Singh, and he further referred to the deposition of one Madan Singh who also during the course of trial has deposed before the Court that Kariya Singh had fired upon the deceased.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the informant is the eye-witness and son of the deceased and as such any documents which has been produced in the present bail application will only entail the tampering with the records of the case.

¶21

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the bail application and has further submitted that from the record it appears that the informant is the eye-witness in whose presence the petitioner has fired upon the deceased.

¶22

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, materials on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶23

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶24

aditya/minu U T

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit 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

Niraj Singh @ Neeraj Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Raja Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jaikant Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kishun Hembram Vs the State of Bihar

Rizu Khan@ Rizwan Khan Vs the State of Bihar