Dilip Yadav @ Dilip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51830 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2020 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE District- Gaya ====================================================== Dilip Yadav @ Dilip Kumar S/O Kameshwar Yadav R/O VillageGulariyachak, P.S-Magadh Medical, District-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ramchandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Magadh Medical P. S. Case No.257 of 2020, instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 384, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and has antecedent of three cases out of which, the petitioner stands acquitted in two cases and in one case, he has not been remanded as stated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51830 of 2021(2) dt.08-02-2022 2/3 Para-3 of the bail application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant alleges that petitioner along with co-accused fired causing injury to the informant in his right hand and leg for refusing to pay extortion amount of Rs. One Lac, which was being demanded by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated and even presuming without admitting that the allegation is true then the informant was hit on the non-vital part of the body. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail application and submits that though allegation is of firing on the non-vital part of the body, but then the occurrence took place for the reason that the informant was not willing to pay the extortion amount. Thus, the petitioner in order to threaten him had fired causing injury on the non-vital part of the body.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant bail application with a liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51830 of 2021(2) dt.08-02-2022 3/3 Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T