Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12098/2021rejected

Monu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-03Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12098 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2020 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur ====================================================== MONU KUMAR S/o Bhola Roy @ Chandrika Prasad Rai R/o villageChandauli, P.S.- Waris Nagar, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sujit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar Mr.Umeshanand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the informant.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Waris Nagar P.S. Case No. 184 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no allegation of firing against this petitioner. The allegation of firing is against co-accused Md. Gulab with whom this petitioner has no concern. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12098 of 2021(4) dt.03-03-2022 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report. Petitioner was riding the motorcycle from which the accused persons had come and had made firing causing injury to the daughter of the informant and thereby has taken active participation in commission of the offence. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T