Ayush Dangi @Ayush Raj Dangi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31182 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1435 Year-2023 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ayush Dangi @Ayush Raj Dangi Son Of Devendra Dangi @ Randhir Kumar Resident Of Village- Lakhani Bigha, Ps- Danapur, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Mokhtar Ansari For the Informant :
Mr. Krishna Murai Rawt ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307/504 of the Indian Penal Code 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Nitesh Kumar and Prashant Kumar had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 7319 of 2024 and the same was allowed by an order dated 01.03.2024. It is further submitted that petitioner is seeking regular bail and is in custody since 16.12.2023 and is a person with clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31182 of 2024(3) dt.20-09-2024 2/2
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail application of the petitioner and submits that Nitesh Kumar and Prashant Kumar were granted privilege of anticipatory bail as there was no specific allegation against them of causing assault or firing but then from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant specifically alleges that petitioner fired causing firearm injury to the father and grandmother of the informant and the grandmother of the informant died during the course of treatment, as such, it is submitted that petitioner is in the category of assailant.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
6. The application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sudhanshu/- U T