Hari Narayan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28064 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-421 Year-2021 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== HARI NARAYAN Son of Late Rupan Singh Resident of Village - Bala Tand, P.S.- Bidupur, District - Vaishali at Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Murli Dhar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-11-2022 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, 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of three cases and the informant alleges that an FIR was instituted against the accused persons by his father relating to assault of the informant, further, on account of institution of the case, the accused persons on 30.08.2021 came and Chhotu gave pistol to Hari Narayan who fired causing injury on his right leg.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28064 of 2022(2) dt.14-11-2022 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that on account of dispute relating to land, the informant has falsely implicated the petitioner, it is also submitted that a Title Suit is pending between the parties. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is serious allegation of firing against the petitioner and according to the injury report, the informant received firearm injury. The learned A.P.P submits that the mere fact that the petitioner fired causing injury on the informant that in itself disentitles him from the grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P for the State, the Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/Rishabh/- U T