Patna High Court – Orders
Masudan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 18 January, 2025
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64979 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2024 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
Masudan Singh S/O Viswanath Singh R/O Village- Janardanpur, P.S- Fatuha,
Distt- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68770 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2024 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
Ranjan Singh @ Ranjan Kumar Son of Amin Singh R/o -Janardanpur, PS-
Fatuha, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64979 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68770 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pronoti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 18-01-2025
Cr. Misc. No.64979 of 2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Fatuha
P. S. Case No.191 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64979 of 2024(5) dt.18-01-2025
2/5
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent and is in custody since 23.04.2024 and charge sheet
has been submitted and from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the F.I.R., it would manifest that allegation of assaulting the
deceased by an iron rod is against Ranjit Kumar. It is further
submitted that allegation of assault against this petitioner is
general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that though a
case has been instituted under the Arms Act but no one was
injured, which amply demonstrates that the case was instituted
under the Arms Act only to give seriousness to the case. It is
next submitted that charge sheet has been submitted, as such, no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail,
who is a person with clean antecedent.
4. The learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the
informant opposes the bail application of the petitioner. The
learned counsel for the informant submits that from perusal of
the postmortem report, it would manifest that the deceased also
had four external injuries including the injury on head, which
amply demonstrates that the deceased was assaulted by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64979 of 2024(5) dt.18-01-2025
3/5
accused persons, on which, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that no doubt there are four injuries mentioned in the
postmortem report but then three injuries are in nature of
abrasion.
5. Be that as it may, considering the submissions, the
petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court, in
connection with Fatuha P. S. Case No.191 of 2024.
6. However, if the learned trial court comes to a
conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying to delay the
trial in any manner, in that event, the learned trial court shall be
at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
Cr. Misc. No.68770 of 2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Fatuha
P. S. Case No.191 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64979 of 2024(5) dt.18-01-2025
4/5
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent and is in custody since 06.05.2024 and charge sheet
has been submitted and from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the F.I.R., it would manifest that allegation of assaulting the
deceased by an iron rod is against Ranjit Kumar. It is further
submitted that allegation of assault against this petitioner is
general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that though a
case has been instituted under the Arms Act but no one was
injured, which amply demonstrates that the case was instituted
under the Arms Act only to give seriousness to the case. It is
next submitted that charge sheet has been submitted, as such, no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail,
who is a person with clean antecedent.
4. The learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the
informant opposes the bail application of the petitioner. The
learned counsel for the informant submits that from perusal of
the postmortem report, it would manifest that the deceased also
had four external injuries including the injury on head, which
amply demonstrates that the deceased was assaulted by the
accused persons, on which, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that no doubt there are four injuries mentioned in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64979 of 2024(5) dt.18-01-2025
5/5
postmortem report but then three injuries are in nature of
abrasion.
5. Be that as it may, considering the submissions, the
petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Fatuha P. S. Case No.191 of 2024.
6. However, if the learned trial court comes to a
conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying to delay the
trial in any manner, in that event, the learned trial court shall be
at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link