Golu Kumar @ Golu @ Kundan Kumar @ Gola v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9951 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2023 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== GOLU KUMAR @ GOLU @ KUNDAN KUMAR @ GOLA Son of Radheyshyam @ Radheyshyam Rai Resident of Village-Ghoshwari, P.S.- Bakhatiyarpur, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Usha Kumari Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.107/2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant who is not an eyewitness to the occurrence but still alleges that this petitioner along with other named accused persons shot his brother, who received three gun shot injuries. It is next submitted that the genesis of the occurrence also has not been disclosed and the injured was not treated in a government

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9951 of 2024(2) dt.27-02-2024 2/2 hospital rather in the F.I.R. it is stated that the injured was brought to Paras hospital, Patna and the F.I.R. also was instituted after a lapse of four days without any plausible explanation for delay.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has antecedent of 8 serious criminal cases. It is also submitted that no doubt the informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence but then from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that he was informed by the friends of his brother who were present at the place of occurrence and informed who shot. It is next submitted that even the investigation is going on.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T