Dhananjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26032 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1181 Year-2022 Thana- BARARI District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== DHANANJAY YADAV SON OF LATE NARESH YADAV @ LATE NARESH PRASAD YADAV Resident of Mohalla - Housing Board, Police Station - Barari, District - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR , PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 379, 307, 329, 120B, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, petitioner is said to have fired upon the informant and one Ravi Kumar @ Sarad.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26032 of 2023(2) dt.13-07-2023 2/2 omnibus in nature. The alleged occurrence took place due to land dispute. The informant and Gopal Mandal both were claiming their title upon the land in question. Petitioner has no concern with the land in question. Petitioner is neither the staff of Dady Restaurant nor the owner of the hotel. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that para 82 of the case diary shows that the injuries sustained by the victims were grievous in nature, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of case as well as nature of the injuries sustained by the victims, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T