Guddu Kumar @ Aryan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50905 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2024 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna ====================================================== Guddu Kumar @ Aryan Kumar Son of Upendra Rai R/O Anandpuri, Rajapurpul, Post- G.P.O., P.S.- S.K. Puri, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rahul Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2024 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with S.K. Puri PS Case No. 134/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 384, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Section 37 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that accused persons came in his restaurant and started demanding ransom, on which the police was informed but the accused persons fled but again after some time accused persons came and started assaulting the staff of the restaurant, when the police arrived and two persons were apprehended while other two accused persons fled and the apprehended accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50905 of 2024(2) dt.29-07-2024 2/2 disclosed the name of the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a student but then the learned APP while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner submits that though it is submitted that petitioner is a student but then the same is not pleaded nor any documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish that petitioner is a student. It is also submitted that it is a case where it is alleged that accused persons in drunken state had gone to the shop and had demanded extortion.

5.

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

6.

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T