Viswajeet Kumar Yadav @ Vishwazit Kumar Yadav @ Teju Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23831 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2023 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Viswajeet Kumar Yadav @ Vishwazit Kumar Yadav @ Teju Yadav Son of Virendra Yadav Resident of Village- Tetariya, P.S.- Sahar, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madhav Raj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 15-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Arwal P.S. Case no. 319 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 307 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per F.I.R., informant got confidential information that four accused persons boarded on two motorcycle had come to commit loot and after getting information, the informant along with other police official started checking of motorcycle and during that course, four persons boarded on two motorcycles came there and on seeing the police, the miscreants started to flee away and one miscreant fell down from the said motorcycle and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23831 of 2024(3) dt.15-05-2024 2/2 on seeing the police, one of the miscreants opened fire from his pistol. However, co-accused Rajesh Kumar was arrested and a mobile phone was recovered from him. Apprehended co-accused disclosed the name of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. Only on the basis of confessional statement of apprehended co-accused person, he has been dragged in this case. He was not apprehended on spot.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has nine criminal antecedents.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and as such, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

7. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below and prays for regular bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T