IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66725 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2021 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Shalu Kumar @ Sholu Kumar @ Salu Son of Binod Sah @ Binod Singh Vill- Gangapur Ps- Tajpur vaini op Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP For the informant : Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 24-01-2025 Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan representing the petitioner, Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as also the State. 2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Taj P.S. Case No. Tajpur (Vaini O.P.) Police Station Case 132 of 2021 for the offence punishable under sections 302, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 27.03.2021 by the informant, Prabha Kumari. 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that upon hearing the bullet sound, she went down stairs and found her son in a pool of blood with bullet hitting his head and body. The named accused persons escaped in two motorcycles. This led to the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lady is not an eye-witness, omnibus allegation is there, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66725 of 2024(3) dt.24-01-2025 2/2 Aman Kumar who was also named along with this petitioner has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 9146 of 2022 dated 04.08.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand submits that in a murder case where the petitioner was named, despite that, the FIR being of the year 2021, he evaded arrest for three years, it is only recently that he was picked up by the police and further has criminal antecedent. 6. Learned APP also supports the case and submits that due to his delay in coming to the judicial custody, the trial got hampered in a murder case where the informant’s mother has alleged against the accused persons including this petitioner. 7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also that the petitioner delayed coming to the judicial custody which rightly has been pointed out by the learned State Counsel that he delayed the trial, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail. 8. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Vijay Singh/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T