Sumit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 41659 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2014 Thana -SOUR BAZAR District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Sumit Yadav Son of Late Tribhuban Yadav Resident of Village - Arraha, P.S.- Sour Bazar, District - Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 27-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Sour Bazar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2014 dated 25.01.2014 instituted under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of The Arms Act, 1959.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegation itself it was Arbind Yadav who was first seen by the informant having pistol in both the hands and the deceased was also killed by single shot. It is submitted that even the informant who was the father of the deceased had heard only one gun shot fire. Learned counsel further submits that some witnesses have not taken the name of the petitioner being present at the place of occurrence and he has been falsely made accused along with three others without there being any overt act attributed to him.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41659 of 2014 (3) dt.27-04-2015 2/2 Learned A.P.P.

opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that despite there being no specific allegation or eye witness as to who fired shot killing the deceased, the mere presence of the petitioner along with three other co-accused near the dead body with fire arm in his hands and further there being no explanation as to why there would be false implication, the petitioner does not deserve the indulgence of anticipatory bail and rather be directed to surrender before the Court below seeking regular bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the specific nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

However, in the event the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail before the Court below, the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.

U T