Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24239/2024bail rejected

Raju Yadav @ Prince Raj v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-29Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24239 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2017 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Raju Yadav @ Prince Raj Son Of Jagarnath Yadav @ Jagarnath Prasad Resident Of Village- Dedaur, Ps- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S Case No. 320 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 120B, 34 of the of Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act from the court of learned A.C.J.M, 1st , Barh, Patna.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner along with co-accused have assaulted the informant by means of firearm due to which he sustained gunshot injury on head and right side of the stomach.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely been implicated in this case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24239 of 2024(2) dt.29-04-2024 2/2 Petitioner has got three criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the FIR, impugned order it appears that, informant sustained gunshot injury on head and right side of the stomach, petitioner is named in FIR, petitioner is absconder since last six year from the occurrence dated 05.08.2017, under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C (Istehar) already been issued, moreover, there is three criminal antecedents against the petitioner so, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Hence, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T