Chhotu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40868 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2025 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Chhotu Singh S/O Yogesh Singh R/O Village- Deokali, P.S- Obra, Distt.- Aurangabad, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sagar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Obra P.S. Case no.130 of 2025 registered under sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that while he along with his mother were asleep in the house, the petitioner came there armed with pistol and waving the same, started to hurl abuses. Thereafter, he resorted to firing which was also captured in the CCTV camera.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40868 of 2025(3) dt.08-10-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations are false and concocted. No person was injured in the entire occurrence and so far as the CCTV footage is concerned, the same has still not been verified as required under law. The cause of false implication of the petitioner is his antecedent.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and specially the contents of the CCTV footage which has transpired in course of investigation to have captured the image of the petitioner substantiating the allegations levelled in the FIR, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected.

7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned Court below within a period of four weeks.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T