Abid v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40076 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2020 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== ABID S/O MD. SOHAIL R/O MOHALLA-LALKOTHI, SULTANPUR, P.SDANAPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.J. N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J.N. Thakur, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 207 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323, 325, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation, the accused persons named in the FIR surrounded the informant and assaulted him with lathi, stick etc. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that at the instigation of co-accused Aftab Alam, he fired shot upon the informant with an intention to kill him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prior

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40076 of 2021(7) dt.26-07-2022 2/2 to the occurrence the informant and other accused persons had committed murder of brother of the petitioner and they were making pressure upon the petitioner and his family members for compromising that case but the petitioner was not ready and it was the reason that he has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. He has submitted further that there is no independent witness in this case.

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P., Sri. J.N. Thakur, has submitted that firearm injuries were found on the person of the informant.

Considering the above-mentioned acts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and makes a prayer for regular bail it shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this Order. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T