Sanjeev Jaiswal @ Ghutan Jaiswal @ Sanjeev Kumar Jaiswal @ Ghutan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20478 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2020 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Sanjeev Jaiswal @ Ghutan Jaiswal @ Sanjeev Kumar Jaiswal @ Ghutan Son of Late Janardan Prasad Jaiswal 2.

Nikhil Jaiswal @ Saket Jaiswal Son of Sanjeev Kumar Jaiswal @ Ghuntan Jaiswal @ Sanjeev Jaiswal @ Ghutan Both residents of Raj Mandir Cinema, Main Road, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv.

For the State :

Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 14 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

Petitioners are said to have opened fire of their respective rifles as a result of which informant sustained firearm injury on his right hand finger.

Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that there is case and counter case between the parties and as a matter of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20478 of 2020(3) dt.15-01-2021 2/2 fact, the informant and his supporters made attempt to take possession of lands of the petitioners. He further submits that moreover, no firearm injury was found on the person of the informant rather simple abrasion was found on his finger said to be caused by hard and blunt substance and taking note of the aforesaid fact the supervising authority did not find case true under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel of the petitioners further submits that so far as Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the seized rifle belongs to petitioners and the said rifle is a licensee rifle.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, the provisional bail granted to petitioner vide order dated 09.10.2020 is, hereby, confirmed and accordingly, this anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) shahzad/- U T