Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1023/2021dismissed

Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-02-20Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1023 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2020 Thana- DEO District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Pappu Kumar, aged about 19 years, Gender-Male, son of Surendra Yadav, resident of village- Juda Bigha, P.S. Deo, District Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-02-2021 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Bhsaskar Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Deo PS Case No.47 of 2020 dated 02.06.2020, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1b)a, 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioner is of intimidation by revolver and also assault. It is alleged that villagers had come and snatched the firearm from him and he had run away.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1023 of 2021 dt.20-02-2021 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was dispute between two villages on account of a match due to which this false implication has been made and that the villagers had seized the firearm and given it to the police and it was not recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that even the motorcycle, which was recovered, does not belong to him.

5. Learned APP submitted that there is no false implication and the specific allegation is only against the petitioner of criminally intimidating by firearm and also assault.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) J. Alam/- AFR/NAFR U T