Uday Ojha And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28699 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -20 Year- 2017 Thana -BIHIYA District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Uday Ojha Son of late Bachcha Ojha Resident of Village- Nawadih, Police Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur.

2. Buchan Yadav Son of Bikram Yadav Resident of Village- Khadara, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur.

3. Munna Ojha Son of Ramanuj Ojha Resident of Village- Jamuan, Police Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukul Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Bihiya P.S. Case No. 20 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Chowkidar Kashinath Yadav, the informant alleged that Anil Yadav, Ajit Yadav, Vikash Yadav, Jogendra Yadav, Sikandar Yadav, Santosh Yadav, Hridaya Yadav and others from one side and Barak Kushwaha, Chotak Kushwaha, Krishna Yadav, Buchan Yadav petitioner no. 2, Munna Ojha petitioner no. 3, Uday Ojha petitioner no. 1 belongs to another

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28699 of 2017 (3) dt.19-08-2017 group made indiscriminate firing each other on account of land dispute.

Shri Mukul Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one Arjun Ram received gun shot injury on his chest. Arjun Yadav disclosed that he got firearm injuries on account of firing made by Anil Yadav. There is no allegation of firing against the petitioners but, from perusal of the FIR it appears that Anil Yadav and Ajit Yadav and others were of one group, the petitioners belonged to other group. Firings were made against each other by the members of both the groups. Empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence. Considering the facts that the petitioners also made indiscriminate firing, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) KKSINHA/- U T