Gaurav Raj Sisodia v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14461 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2021 Thana- DEO District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Gaurav Raj Sisodia, Son Of Manoj Kumar Singh Resident Of Village - Badhni, P.S.- Deo, Distt.- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jogendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Epidemic Act and Section 66 of the I. T. Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a young boy of 21 years of age and the informant alleges that a video was made viral in which people were seen indulging in happy firing and on inquiry, it was found that petitioner, who is son of elected Mukhiya, was firing in the victory procession of his father despite COVID Protocol being in operation and also that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14461 of 2022(2) dt.19-09-2022 2/3 happy firing is prohibited in the State of Bihar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the petitioner was identified by the local Chaukidar, but then there were so many people in the victory procession of the same village home, the Chaukidar did not identify them, which prima face demonstrates that the Chaukidar only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioner had identified him when admittedly the petitioner was not indulging in any kind of firing. The learned counsel next submits that considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is a student, even if what has been alleged is true without admitting for the purposes of bail, in the event, if the petitioner is sent to jail, his entire career would be jeopardized. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the anticipatory bail application.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and also the fact that he is a student, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14461 of 2022(2) dt.19-09-2022 3/3 from today, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Deo P. S. Case No.132 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., subject to condition that one of the bailors shall be the maternal uncle of the petitioner, namely, Sidhartha Kumar. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T