Dismissed¶7

Muneshwar Ray v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 May 2024CR. MISC./22201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection; regular bail denied; firearm/pistol firing injury to informant; five empty cartridges seized; injury report - firearm entry wound, right chest, age within four hours; two criminal antecedents; Sections 326, 307/34 IPC; Section 27 Arms Act; Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 22 of 2022; Vaishali; custody since 04.11.2023; impugned order dated 31.01.2024; Patna High Court; Criminal Miscellaneous No.22201 of 2024; Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.; decision dated 22-05-2024.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected. ¶7

Muneshwar Ray Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to petitioner Muneshwar Ray in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 22 of 2022 (offences under Sections 326 and 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act).

¶2

Court's answer

Perusal of the case diary, first information report and the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 shows that the specific allegation is against the petitioner of firing by pistol upon the informant, causing injury to him.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Seizure evidence supports the specific allegation: five empty cartridges were seized from the place of occurrence (para-5 of the case diary).

¶6

Key takeaways

The victim's injury report (mentioned in para-44 of the case diary) records that the doctor found an entry wound caused by firearms.ratio¶6
Clinical findings corroborate firearm injury: age of injury within four hours, substance used is fire arm weapon, and the doctor kept the opinion regarding nature of injury reserved.ratio¶6
Several witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused (Oral Order, 22-05-2024) by Ramesh Chand Malviya, J, Patna High Court, in Crl. Misc. No.22201 of 2024 to petitioner Muneshwar Ray, in custody since 04.11.2023, for Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 22 of 2022, Vaishali (Sections 326 and 307/34 IPC; Section 27 Arms Act). Perusal of the case diary, FIR and the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 showed the specific allegation that the petitioner fired a pistol upon the informant causing injury; five empty cartridges were seized at the place of occurrence (CD para-5); the victim's injury report (CD para-44) recorded a firearm entry wound on the right chest, aged within four hours, substance used fire arm weapon, nature-of-injury opinion reserved; several witnesses supported the prosecution; and the petitioner had two criminal antecedents (petition para-3). Counsel's plea of false implication and general/omnibus allegation did not prevail; the prayer for bail was rejected.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22201 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2022 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali

¶3

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

¶4

Muneshwar Ray Son Of Late Ramishwar Ray Resident Of Village- Terasia, Ward No. 14, P.S.- Ganga Bridg, Dist.- Vaishali

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

¶8

3 22-05-2024

¶9

ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

¶10

for the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S Case No. 22 of 2022 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶12

Allegation against the petitioner along with other coaccused persons is to have caused fire arm injury to the informant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case, there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and he is in custody since 04.11.2023.

¶14

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

From perusal of the case diary, first information report and the impugned order dated 31.01.2024, it appears that the specific allegation is against the petitioner of firing by pistol upon

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22201 of 2024(3) dt.22-05-2024 2/2

¶17

the informant causing injury to him. The seizure list mentioned in para-5 of the case diary shows that five empty cartridges were seized from the place of occurrence. The injury report of the victim attached with the case diary and mentioned in para-44 of the case diary also shows that the doctor has found entry wound caused by fire arms, entry wound circular irregular margin apprehended collar with red blood and short particles present over right chest 2” wound to right nipple, size of wound is circular and ½” diameter and suggested X- ray of chest, primary treatment has been given and referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. Age of injury is within four hours and substance used is fire arm weapon and the opinion regarding nature of injury was kept reserved by the doctor and several witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution and also the petitioner having two criminal antecedents as stated in para-3 of the petition, as such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶19

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

¶20

Brajesh Kumar/- U T

Muneshwar Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneshwar Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Singh @ Vikash Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sapan Manjhi @ Sapan Santhal @ Talo Tembram Vs The State of Bihar

Sheopujan Yadav @ Pujan @ Shiv Pujan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rang Rajan Vs The State of Bihar

Lalita Devi Vs The State of Bihar