Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30488/2023dismissed

Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-17Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30488 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2022 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1.

Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar Son Of Silayee Yadav Resident Of Village Parmanandpur, Ward No 11, Ps Murliganj, Distt-M Madhepura 2.

Bhola Yadav Son Of Kari Yadav Resident Of Village Parmanandpur, Ward No 11, Ps Murliganj, Distt- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 302, 120(B), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the learned court below.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners are said to have shot bullet repeatedly from their firearms at the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioners. He further submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30488 of 2023(3) dt.17-08-2023 2/2 petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that they have fired upon the deceased and post-mortem report has also supported the prosecution case. Hence, they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 254 of 2022. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ajay/- U T