Sumit Yadav @ Sunit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11735 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2022 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== SUMIT YADAV @ SUNIT YADAV S/O RAMJEE YADAV Resident of village- Khontaha Ward No.- 1, P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 247 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case due to malicious motive of the informant and dirty village politics. Further submission is that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and he has no criminal antecedent.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11735 of 2023(2) dt.18-04-2023 2/2 the State vehemently opposes the prayer of bail and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of firing upon the brother of the informant and assaulting the informant, his sister-in-law, mother, brothers and other family members. He also submitted that earlier also the petitioner assaulted the brother and the nephew of the informant after putting gun. He therefore, submits that petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) anuradha/- U T