CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Arun Singh vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 12 December 2019 · Citation: (2019) 12 PAT CK 0097

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 302 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 82294 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 358 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Naubatpur PS Case No. 149 of 2001 dated 28.08.2001 instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner and seven others in the First Information Report is of firing on the deceased leading to his death.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he has been named as one of the persons against whom there is specific allegation of firing but the witnesses in the trial of the remaining co-accused had not stated his complicity. It was submitted that in the said trial, co-accused have been acquitted and even in the trial of the petitioner, the informant has stated that he has not seen the occurrence and the petitioner was not involved in the murder of his father, who was the deceased. It was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2019. It was further submitted that the petitioner was never aware of him being implicated in the criminal case and, thus, could not surrender earlier.

5.

Learned APP submitted that there is specific allegation of firing against the petitioner and most importantly, the petitioner having evaded the law and that too having been finally arrested on 29.03.2019, does not deserve the privilege of bail. It was submitted that the plea of being unaware is totally falsified for the reason that seven other co-accused were of the same village and such an important and serious case pending in which the others were facing trial, cannot be hidden from public knowledge and, thus, it is a clear case of trying to hoodwink the system and only when others have been acquitted, the trial against the petitioner finally started and from the conduct of the informant, it is clear that he has not stated the truth before the Court.

6.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.