Ramparvesh Chuahan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56730 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-690 Year-2021 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan ====================================================== Ramparvesh Chuahan S/O Balister Chauhan Resident Of Village- Dahibhatta Takiya Tola P.S.- Uchkagaon District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

According to prosecution case, in brief, is that when the informant was sitting on bench outside the grossery shop of his village, then Ramparvesh Chauhan (petitioner), Balister Chauhan came ridding on a motorcycle and Ram Pravesh Chauhan fired by weapon, as the result of which informant became injured and fled away. It is further alleged that Ram Pravesh Chauhan is dewar of the Ramawati Devi and Balister

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56730 of 2022(2) dt.07-12-2022 2/3 Chauhan is sasur of the informant's daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner has fired upon the informant but the injury report of the informant does not support the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R and the injury caused and blunt substance are simple in nature and the allegation in the F.I.R is not sustained. He further submits that there is no case is made out under the Arms Act against the petitioner.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Siwan (Mufassil) Dhanauti OP P.S. Case No. 690 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also the following

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56730 of 2022(2) dt.07-12-2022 3/3 conditions:-

1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) nilmani/- U T