Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14159/2023dismissed

Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananajay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-21Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14159 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2022 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna ====================================================== Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananajay Singh Son Of Ramasish Singh R/VDavbigha, P.S- Bena, Dist- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Madhuri Lata ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 174 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Barh, District Patna.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have fired upon the father of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that from the F.I.R. itself it is apparent that the occurrence took

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14159 of 2023(5) dt.21-08-2023 2/2 place for not deposing by the accused persons but admittedly neither the petitioner was an accused in the case of murder of his brother nor he has any concern with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and the postmortem report supports the prosecution case. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T