Md Naushad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32603 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2013 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== MD NAUSHAD S/o Md. Khalik R/o village- Bakarpur, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Md. Najmul Hodda For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-03-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 151 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 307, 302, 114, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation, 20 accused persons named in the FIR equipped with arms and ammunition opened indiscriminate firing upon the informant and his brother. They attempted to flee away, meanwhile, the present petitioner and Md. Aurangazeb @ Tarzan fired shot on the brother of the informant. The firing done by the present petitioner hit on the mouth of the informant's brother and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32603 of 2021(2) dt.31-03-2022 2/2 shot committed by Md. Aurangazeb @ Tarzan hit the left wrist of the informant's brother due to which he died on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that altogether 20 persons have been falsely implicated. He has also submitted that there is land dispute between the parties. The FIR shows itself that the present petitioner shot fire on the brother of the informant who died on the spot, as such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T