← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./56448/2017rejected

Shailesh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-06Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56448 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -184 Year- 2017 Thana -SULTANGANJ District- PATNA ====================================================== Shailesh, Son of Ram Pal Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Ghagha Ghat, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ----------- 06-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No.184 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 342, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna. The accusation is that on 14.08.2017 at about 09.00 P.M., the informant Pinku alias Chiku alongwith his friends was sitting in the temple. At that time, four persons, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner armed with pistol in their hands came there and started to abuse. At that time, Ranju Yadav and this

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56448 of 2017 (2) dt.06-12-2017 2/2 petitioner shot fire at the informant causing firearm injury on his left cheek and back. The cause of occurrence is said to be old enmity.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner is the cousin brother of the informant and is also the cousin brother of Sanjeet Kumar and due to dispute with regard to the partition of the land, this petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T