Patna HC rejected bail in a forgery and attempted murder case. The petitioner alleged false implication due to land dispute, citing delayed FIR. Court noted confirmed grievous injury and refused bail.
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.52011 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2020 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
ANAND KUMAR @ KUNAL S/o- SHRI AMARJYOTI THAKUR Resident of Village- Rohua, P.S.- Warisnagar, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video
conferencing.
The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 307, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have fired two shots from his pistol one of which hit the informant in his stomach.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. While the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 25.8.2020 and the informant was treated at the Primary Health Centre, for no explanation the fardbeyan is registered after a delay of four days
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52011 of 2021(3) dt.01-04-2022 2/2
ie on 29.8.2020. There has been dispute between the parties with respect to a vacant land which falls behind the houses of both the petitioner and the informant. The petitioner was at his place of posting where his attendance was also marked. He is in custody since 26.6.2021 and investigation in the case has concluded.
Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case including the allegation against the petitioner of having fired on the informant together with the allegations being confirmed from the injury report wherein grievous injury caused by firearm was found in the abdomen of the informant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in a case involving aggravated hurt and attempted murder.
Whether the delay in registering the Fardbeyan warrants bail.
Whether the evidence of injury by firearm justifies denial of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anand Kumar @ Kunal
The State of Bihar
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
