Raj Srivastav @ Raj Kumar Srivastav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55711 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -410 Year- 2014 Thana -HAJIPUR SADAR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Raj Srivastav @ Raj Kumar Srivastav, Son of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Mohalla- Adalbari, Behind I.T.I, P.S. Hazipur Town, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-02-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No.410 of 2014, registered under Sections 324, 326, 379, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.

The accusation is that on 25.05.2014, when the informant was returning to his house and reached at Firjee Chowk in the way the petitioner along with Gabbar and two unknown stopped him. At that time, this petitioner fired at the informant causing injury near his chest. When he fell down then Gabbar also made firing at him, but he got down and saved

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55711 of 2016 (4) dt.03-02-2017 2/2 himself. It is alleged that caused of occurrence is that this petitioner kidnapped Rani Kumar, daughter of his cousin fatherin-law and the informant had made protest on it and Gabbar also purchased land of his cousin father-in-law and some amount was due and the informant used to demand the due money from Gabbar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner performed marriage with the daughter of the cousin father-in-law of the informant against the will of the family members, due to that reason petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T