Sanoj Kurmi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28169 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2019 Thana- AANDAR District- Siwan ====================================================== SANOJ KURMI, aged about 35 years, Male, Son of Late Genda Kurmi, Resident of Village- Usari, P.S.- M.H. Nagar, Distt- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-12-2020 Heard Mr. Raghav Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, the learned Additional P.P. through video conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Ander P.S. Case No.105 of 2019, registered under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The informant alleged that while he along with his family members were supervising the construction work, Sanoj Kurmi, the petitioner and Vinod Kurmi having armed with pistol came on a motorcycle and they made firing. The informant got providential escape. The occurrence took place only because the informant protested the illegal activities of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has in fact committed no offence. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28169 of 2020(2) dt.03-12-2020 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case on account of previous enmity. The petitioner is alleged to have fired but nobody was injured. Allegation of firing is false. The informant was within the range of the petitioner and if the petitioner had intention to kill him, he would have made repeated firing, therefore, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail.

The learned Additional P.P. however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Perused the FIR. It appears that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent and there is specific allegation that the petitioner made firing. From the place of occurrence, two empty cartridges were recovered and this fact shows that two firing was made by the petitioner and his accomplice.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T