Sadhu Chaudhary @ Vivek Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55651 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2004 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Sadhu Chaudhary @ Vivek Chaudhary S/o Late Jhulan Chaudhary R/o vill - Chitar Bigha, P.S. - Chandi, Distt. - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Chand Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 68 of 2004 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that while he was returning home after purchasing articles of Holi when he was intercepted by the accused persons including the petitioner and they assaulted him by fist and slap and accused fired causing injury on his right thigh, accordingly, the informant was taken to hospital from where he was referred to PMCH.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the informant does

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55651 of 2024(2) dt.04-09-2024 2/2 not allege that it was this petitioner who fired causing firearm injury, it is next submitted that petitioner is a labourer and works outside the State of Bihar and was not present at the time of the occurrence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that a vague pleading has been made at Para-13 of the anticipatory bail application that the petitioner works outside the State of Bihar, but then the name of the State where the petitioner works is not disclosed nor the details where he works, is disclosed, which demonstrates that a bald plea has been taken. It is also submitted that informant was injured by firearm injury and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner.

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

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T