Arun Yadav @ Arun Kumar Yadav @ Chhotu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19206 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2020 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== Arun Yadav @ Arun Kumar Yadav @ Chhotu Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav R/o vill - Manpur, P.s. - Khaira, Distt. - Jamui at present Bodhwan Talab, P.S. and Distt. - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sono PS Case No. 258 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b) a, 26 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, while the police, was on night patrolling duty reached near Chiran Bridge at 3:45 AM saw 8-10 persons in suspicious condition started fleeing away having seen the police. However, one of them, namely, Yogendra Yadav @ Yogi Yadav was apprehended while others succeeded in fleeing away. One country made loaded pistol and a mobile phone were recovered from the possession of Yogendra Yadav @ Yogi Yadav. The apprehended person disclosed the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19206 of 2024(2) dt.28-03-2024 2/2 name of miscreants including this petitioner who have managed to flee away from the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the name of the petitioner has been falsely disclosed by the co-accused person, Yogendra Yadav @ Yogi Yadav in his confession statement. He next submits that petitioner has got eight criminal antecedents and in all the cases, the petitioner is on bail.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner who is named accused and submits that petitioner is a habitual criminal having eight criminal antecedent which includes the heinous crime. The investigation against the petitioner is pending.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the eight criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) perwez U T