← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28030/2016rejected

Chandan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2016-07-15Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28030 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -12 Year- 2016 Thana -KAUAKOL District- NAWADA ====================================================== Chandan Yadav, Son of Late Bhagirath Yadav, Resident of Village:- Benipur, P.S:- Raupair, District:- Nawada.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Binod Kumar 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Kawakol (Rupau) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge-Vth, Nawada.

The accusation is that petitioner along with Subodh Yadav reached at the door of the informant and started to abuse. On protest, Subodh Yadav bring gun from his house and this petitioner took the same and fired at the informant twice and one bullet hit at the belly of the informant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that at the time of occurrence hot talk were exchanged in which petitioner has also sustained injury regarding which Kawakola

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28030 of 2016 (2) dt.15-07-2016 2/2 (Rupaur) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504/34 of the I.P.C. was instituted. The petitioner is in custody since 26.01.2016.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that petitioner fired at the belly of the informant.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) manish/- U T