Chandrashekhar Yadav @ Chandrashekhar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54485 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2022 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Chandrashekhar Yadav @ Chandrashekhar Singh S/O Hari Yadav R/O Village- Khushmaul, Ward No. 07, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 15-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have committed murder of informant's wife, Shanti Devi by fire shots and due to alleged firing, some persons have also sustained fire shots injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54485 of 2022(2) dt.15-12-2022 2/2 case. He submits that there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. He submits that due to harsh fire in the marriage ceremony some persons were injured and later on wife of the informant was died during the treatment. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined the enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 278 of 2022. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned Court below on the same day without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) nilmani/- U T