Bipin Paswan @ Aman Paswan @ Aman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22334 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2020 Thana- SAKSOHRA District- Patna ====================================================== BIPIN PASWAN @ AMAN PASWAN @ AMAN KUMAR S/o Kamla Paswan R/o village- Saksohra, P.S.- Saksohra, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanchay Srivastava For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar no. 3, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 03-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Saksohra P.S. Case no. 24 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 307, 353 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner along with other co-accused persons have stopped the vehicle of the police constables while they were on patrolling duty. When the police van was being stopped, the informant recognized all the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22334 of 2021(2) dt.03-01-2022 2/2 persons and ordered the constable to arrest the wanted accued namely Bipin Paswan. Then the accused persons with their pistol fired two bullets towards police personnel and getting the benefit of darkness, they fled away from there. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. There is no independent eye witness in the present matter. General and omnibus allegation allegation has been levelled against the petitioner.
Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail and has stated that petitioner is a habitual offender.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U