High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Birendra Singh @ Birendra Kumar … vs State Of Bihar on 26 October, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Birendra Singh @ Birendra Kumar … vs State Of Bihar on 26 October, 2010
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Cr.Misc. No.23179 of 2010
                    BIRENDRA SINGH @ BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                            Versus
                                     STATE OF BIHAR
                                          -----------

5. 26.10.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been made accused in a case under

sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and under section 27 of the Arms

Act.

The informant stated that he along with his son

Ritesh Pandey (the deceased) was going to Sinha Bazar for

treatment. In the way, he came across the petitioner and his son

Munna Pandey. On seeing the informant and his son, Munna

Pandey went inside the house and came with rifle. One Nagendra

Singh provoked the duo to kill the informant and his son.

However, gauzing the intention, informant and his son started

fleeing away from the scene. It is alleged that Munna Pandey fired

two shots but it did not hit any one. It is further stated in the F.I.R.

that when fire opened by Munna Pandey missed, Ritesh Pandey

looked back to see the situation, he saw the petitioner firing from

the rifle. The fire shot opened by the petitioner hit right chest of

Ritesh Pandey, whereafter he fell down on the ground. Injured

was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Arrah and thereafter to the

PMCH but in way he died. Cause of occurrence is said to be a

previous altercation between the parties for flying kites.

The petitioner submits that independent witnesses
2

stated that son of informant/the deceased used to tease daughter of

petitioner which was earlier protested. Furthermore, it is difficult

to witness the firing from front, when the deceased was admittedly

running for life along with his father/the informant. The witnesses

too reached after the occurrence.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

prayer for bail of the petitioner as above is refused with

observation to renew the prayer for bail after eight months.

Shashi.                            (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)