Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59568/2022dismissed

Vinod Yadav @ Binod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2023-02-03Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59568 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2022 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== VINOD YADAV @ BINOD YADAV Son of Kishun Yadav Resident of Village- Sri Nagar Gopi More, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arya Achint,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar,APP For the Informant :

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 03-02-2023 Heard Mr. Arya Achint, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State through video conferencing in view of the COVID 19.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 67 of 2022 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution story, the allegation is that the informant was going on his motorcycle to his house, when the accused persons intercepted and after abusing, they assaulted and specific allegation against this petitioner is of opening fire causing injury in informant's stomach. The further allegation is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59568 of 2022(2) dt.03-02-2023 2/2 that it was not a single assault rather this petitioner twice fired, the first bullet missed thereafter he opened second fire which hit the informant's stomach.

Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Taking into account the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner herein coupled with the fact that he has criminal antecedent certainly this is not a fit case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/Neha/- U T