Kallu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27018 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2022 Thana- CHANDI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== KALLU YADAV Son of Siyaram Singh R/O Village - Rampur, P.S.- Chandi, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Rina Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Dhirendra Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 30-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No.- 220 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has got no criminal antecedent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 23.08.2022 at 10:30 P.M. the petitioner along with Nagesh Yadav and Akash Yadav came to the house of the informant along with four-five persons and started abusing. Nagesh Yadav then assaulted the informant by firing upon him which resulted in an injury on his hand. When the informant attempted to escape the petitioner and Akash Yadav fired upon him and as a result the informant sustained firearm

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27018 of 2023(3) dt.30-08-2023 2/2 injury in his stomach and back.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that no grievous injury has been caused to the informant.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the specific allegation against the petitioner that he fired upon the informant causing injury to him, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.

8. In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by the order of this Court.

9. This application stands disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) tusharika/- U T