Abhimanyu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24218 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-428 Year-2023 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== Abhimanyu Kumar Son Of Kamlesh Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Khojagachhi, P.S. - Barbigha, District - Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 428 of 2023, registered under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, one trainee constable namey Rahul Kumar has shot another trainee constable Sonu Kumar from the SLR of the petitioner who was on duty. The petitioner immediately fled away from the place of occurrence and his SLR was found on bed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24218 of 2024(4) dt.10-07-2024 2/2 shot the deceased with his SLR. The co-accused person snatched his SLR and shot the deceased. Out of panic the petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP submits that official SLR of the petitioner was used by coaccused Rahul Kumar in his presence and thereafter the petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence. Hence, serious allegation is against the petitioner and he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the seriousness of allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks and pray for regular bail. If such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed by the Court below without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T