IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68579 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2023 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Dhananjay Singh @ Bhutali Singh Son Of Surender Singh Resident Of
Village Judawanpur, P.S.-Judawanpur, District-Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR
ORAL ORDER
4 29-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Salimpur P.S. Case. No. 117 of 2023 instituted for the offence
under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27. of
the Arms Act.
Allegation against the petitioner is that he opened fire
on the chest of the informant’s father due to which he sustained
gun shot injury and shot dead.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case
due to election dispute. It is further submitted from para-11 of
this petition that inquest report was prepared before lodging the
FIR which creates doubt about the prosecution case. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68579 of 2023(4) dt.29-02-2024
2/2
submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that
charge has not been framed as yet knowing the fact that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.08.2023.
Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the
prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named
in FIR and there is specific allegation against the petitioner to
open fire upon the informant’s father on his chest due to which
he died. During investigation, witnesses supported the
prosecution case and postmortem report also corroborated with
the prosecution version as entry wound was found in the
postmortem.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail
stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to frame the charge against
the petitioner and conclude the trial as soon as possible.
Petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail
after framing of charge.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
Shubham/-
U T