Prem Sagar Singh @ Prem Sagar Yadav @ Pintu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24464 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2020 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== PREM SAGAR SINGH @ PREM SAGAR YADAV @ PINTU YADAV S/o Late Ganga Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Chakki Bhola Dera, Ward No.04, P.S.- Brahmpur (Chakki), District- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Himanshu Sagar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-12-2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through Video Conferencing.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Brahmpur (Chakki O.P.) Police Station Case No. 164 of 2020, disclosing offences under Sections 341/323/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The allegation, as per the First Information Report, is that the petitioner fired upon the informant, which hit the left thigh of the informant and the informant received serious gunshot injury. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Government employee, working in I.T.B.P. and at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24464 of 2020(6) dt.23-12-2020 2/3 present he is posted at the Border. He further submits that both the parties are agnates and there is dispute over the passage between the parties. He further submits that there is case and counter case inasmuch as the wife of the petitioner has lodged Brahmpur (Chakki O.P.) Police Station Case No. 165 of 2020 against the informant and his brother.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that two rounds were fired by the petitioner upon the informant and the first firing made by the petitioner did not hit the informant; whereas the second firing made by the petitioner hit the informant on his thigh, and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that there is direct allegation of firing against the petitioner and the informant has received gun-shot injury on his thigh, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below and pray for regular bail, the learned Court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24464 of 2020(6) dt.23-12-2020 3/3 below will consider the prayer for regular bail on its own merits without being prejudiced by the present order of dismissal of anticipatory bail application.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √