BULLET SAH @ BULLET KUMAR v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 307, 324, 341, 447, 504
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate Mr. Md. Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Advocate Mr. Bhargava Pandey, Advocate Mr. Madhuri Lata, Addl. Public Prosecutor For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 25-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 447, 341, 324, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution case, this petitioner along with other co-accused persons namely, Dinesh Prasad and Dharmendra Prasad came and on the order of Dharmendra Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33657 of 2023(2) dt.25-07-2023 Prasad, co-accused Dinesh Prasad shot fire on the informant.
It is submitted that specific accusation of firing is against co-accused Dinesh Prasad. There is no specific allegation of overt act alleged against this petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail petition of the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks from today, let the petitioner, as named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. Addtional Sessions Judge, VIII, Gopalganj in connection with Barauli (O.P. Madhopur) P.S. case no 246 of 2015, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Kaushik/- U T (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.