Amit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7033 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2019 Thana- BARARI District- Katihar ====================================================== AMIT YADAV Son of Siko Yadav Resident of Village - Nand Gram Jarlahi, P.S.- Korha, District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 21-08-2020 As of now the Courts have not resumed normal physical hearing, the matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing.

The learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual court proceedings from their homes, all with the aid of audio visual technology.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in Barari PS Case No. 222 of 2019 registered under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It is alleged by the informant that he received information at 7.25 PM that his brother has been shot at by the instant petitioner and he has suffered fire arm injury on his neck. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of two hours. He further submits that the case is one of false implication and that no arms has been recovered from his possession.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7033 of 2020(4) dt.21-08-2020 2/2 Learned APP for the State referring to the case diary and the order of the learned court below submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of inflicting fire arm injury and the doctor has also found charring on the injury sustained by the victim on his neck. The petitioner does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail.

Having considered the rival submissions this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U T