Golu Sah @ Abinash Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66258 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-381 Year-2021 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== Golu Sah @ Abinash Sah S/O Shankar Sah @ Shiv Prasad Sah R/O MohallaMundichak, P.S.- Tilka Manjhi, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 04-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and perused the case diary. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307, 120(B), 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It is a case of assault upon the informant and shot fire by the petitioner along with other accused persons, due to which, Golu Kumar and Rikku became injured and both are the nephew of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66258 of 2021(3) dt.04-08-2022 2/2 petitioner for causing injury to the nephew of the informant. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons opened fire upon the informant's nephew, namely, Golu Kumar and Rikku and they became injured and witnesses during investigation have supported the case of the prosecution. In respect of the injury of Golu Kumar the doctor has opined fracture of fibula which is grievous in nature and also submits that in para-3, it is mentioned that petitioner has more than nine criminal cases.

After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that petitioner has more than nine criminal cases, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T