Rahul Kumar @ Vinay Pd. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45607 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-697 Year-2024 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna ====================================================== Rahul Kumar @ Vinay Pd. Son of Akhilesh Prasad @ Late Akhilesh Prasad Resident of Village- Vishambhar Tola, Kandap, P.S.- Gaurichak, DistrictPatna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 697 of 2024 registered under Sections 103(1), 352, 61(2)(a), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons came to the house of the informant and started abusing husband of the informant and on protest, the petitioner fired upon her husband due to which he died on spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45607 of 2025(2) dt.04-07-2025 2/3 present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner and informant are goitya and due to some prior family disputes, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that on perusal of the postmortem report, it appears that the cause of death is head injury caused by hard and blunt object, whereas allegation against the petitioner is that he fired upon the deceased which in the chest of the deceased and hence, the postmortem report does not corroborate with the case of prosecution. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and there is specific allegation of firing and causing death against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45607 of 2025(2) dt.04-07-2025 3/3 consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T