Gappu @ Amarjit Kumar @ Amrjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44211 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2020 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna ====================================================== GAPPU @ AMARJIT KUMAR @ AMRJIT KUMAR Son of Sri Mannu @ Abhimanyu Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Jamunapur, Goraiya Sthan, P.S.- Malsalami, Patnacity, District- Patna, PIN- 800006. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Parmanand Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Asha Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-05-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Malsalami P.S.Case No. 310 of 2020.

As per allegation, on 11.12.2020 at about 7.00 p.m. one Manish Kumar came to the house of the informant and informed that the husband of the informant was lying in the way. When the informant went there, she saw blood oozing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44211 of 2021(3) dt.12-05-2022 2/2 from his neck. She expressed her belief that the present petitioner and co-accused Ramu Choudhary committed murder of the deceased by chisel.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the injury on the person of the deceased was caused by firearms which is not corroborated by the fardbeyan. On the other hand, the learned APP has submitted that the witnesses in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 have supported the entire occurrence.

The petitioner is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation against him.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not think it a fit case for anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T