Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20755/2024bail rejected

Sidarth Kumar @ Siddharth Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-10Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20755 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2023 Thana- PUSA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sidarth Kumar @ Siddharth Kumar S/O Umendra Ray R/O Village- Daudpur Chaknur, P.S- Mufassil, Distt.- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Jitendra Sinha, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Pusa P.S. Case No. 132 of 2023, registered under Sections 307, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, there is allegation against the petitioner along with other co-accused fired upon the son of the informant due to which he sustained injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has nothing to do with the said occurrence. The petitioner has got one criminal antecedent. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20755 of 2024(3) dt.10-04-2024 2/2 occurrence took place on account of petty dispute. The injury is not on vital part of the body. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner had no intention to kill the son of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. They submit that there is specific allegation of firing is upon the petitioner on the son of the informant. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that specific allegation of firing is against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T