Aman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47070 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-847 Year-2023 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Aman Kumar Son Of Chandra Shekhar Singh @ Shashi Shekhar Singh Village- Doripar, P.S.- Masaurhi, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satish Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 847 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is also submitted that a specific allegation of firing is against Chandra Shekhar Singh, who is alleged to have fired causing fire-arm injury to the informant. It is next submitted that the informant also alleges that the petitioner even fired but then missed. 4.

It is next submitted that the said allegation has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47070 of 2024(2) dt.22-08-2024 2/2 alleged only with a view to implicate both father and the son. 5.

The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that no doubt allegation against this petitioner is of firing but then no one was injured, but it is also an admitted fact that informant received a gunshot injury which is alleged to have been fired by the father of the petitioner and the petitioner was also present at the place of occurrence which emboldened Chandra Shekhar to fire.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T