Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Ravish Kumar @ Ravish Kumar Patel vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2018

Author: Arun Kumar

Bench: Arun Kumar

          Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.15821 of 2018 (2) dt.19-03-2018



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                         Criminal Miscellaneous No.15821 of 2018
                               Arising Out of PS.Case No. -263 Year- 2017 Thana -BARHARA District- PURNIA
                       ======================================================
                       1. Ravish Kumar @ Ravish Kumar Patel, Son of Shyam Sunder Mandal,
                       Resident of Village- Matihani, P.S.- Barhara (Raghubansh Nagar), District-
                       Purnea.                                      .... .... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                       1. The State of Bihar.                          .... .... Opposite Party/s
                       ======================================================
                       Appearance :
                       For the Petitioner/s     : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar
                       For the Opposite Party/s   : Mr. Sri Mustaque Alam
                       ======================================================
                       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
                       ORAL ORDER

2       19-03-2018

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

Petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in Barhara PS Case No. 263 of 2017, registered under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The allegation in brief is that while the informant's son was watching dance programme on the occasion of marriage in the night, the petitioner and three other FIR named accused persons shot at him causing his death, they also fired at the Videographer causing his death also and thereafter they retreated back.

Submission is that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and one of the non-FIR named accused namely Babul Kumar Roy @ Babul Roy has been admitted to bail by this Court.

Whereas learned Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR having specific allegation that he shot at the deceased with the allegation that he shot at the Videographer also causing his death and his case does not stand on similar footing to that of Babul Kumar Roy @ Babul Roy.

Having considered the said facts and circumstances, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

Snkumar/-                                               (Arun Kumar, J)


    U        T