Chano Yadav @ Chandeshwari Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23110 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2020 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Chano Yadav @ Chandeshwari Yadav (M) aged about 50 years, S/o Baleshwar Yadav, Resident of Village- Shergardh, P.S.- Gogari, District Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 05-11-2020 Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State through video conferencing.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 14 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 307 / 504 / 506 / 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with one another accused person fired upon the informant causing fire arm injury near his waist. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and from perusal of the First Information Report it would be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23110 of 2020(4) dt.05-11-2020 2/2 evident that the allegation of firing is upon two persons but only one gun shot injury has been received by the informant. Learned counsel further submits that there appears to be a dispute of mutation between the parties and the informant is Circle Inspector and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to the said dispute.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation of firing is upon the petitioner as well as one another accused person and the petitioner along with other accused persons had purchased 06 bighas of land and there was dispute of mutation between the parties.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of three months from today.

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