Blog

The appellant has filed an appeal in the court for challenging and amending the previous order in which the bail was denied by the court. The appellant has been accused of hurting grievously and has many other criminal antecedents. The Court after considering the facts contended that the bail order needs no interference by the court and same stands to be affirmed. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad in the Shyam Kumar v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Appeal (SJ) No 3569 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were that the appellant has filed an appeal under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes Act 2015. This was filed against the refusal of the bail orders by the court registered under sections 341, 323, 307, and 386 of Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act, and Sections 3 (i) (r) (s), 3 (2-v) of SC/ST Act.

The case arises out of non-fulfillment of the extortion amount. it was alleged that the instant appellant has obstructed the construction work at the informant’s site and fired upon him causing firearm injury on his neck.

The Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant had other 18 criminal antecedents, he was being dragged in the case under false implication. The other side submitted that the forearms were found in the place of occurrence and that the injury has been corroborated in course of the investigation.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna took into consideration the facts and nature of the FIR filed and keeping the criminal antecedents in mind and background pf the petitioner denied the bail and said that the order needs no interference by this court and is accordingly affirmed. The appeal was hence dismissed.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish