Patna High CourtCR. MISC./65329/2024rejected

Yogendra Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-02Mr. Justice S. B. P. Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65329 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2024 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Yogendra Chaudhary Son of Bindhyachal Chaudhary Resident of VillageLaruai, P.S. Suryapura, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-04-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 164 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 419 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution story, Yogendra Chaudhary (petitioner) used to prepare forged arms licence and from that very licence he used to purchase arms from the shop and used to work as security guard. Informant raided the house of Yogendra Chaudhary in village Laruai and caught the persons who tried to flee and he identified as Yogendra Chaudhary, None of the person in village are ready to be witness of search. Thereafter on search the diary like licence bearing no. 1418/08 was recovered, on which the gun was purchased from the shop

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65329 of 2024(5) dt.02-04-2025 2/3 in Calcutta.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and falsely been implicated in this case. It is quite doubtful that alleged recovery was made from the house of the petitioner, since neither the copy of so called seizure list has been supplied to the members of the family nor any local/neighbouring persons were asked to become seizure witnesses. He submits that no such recovery was made from his house nor any incriminating material was found which may suggest the complicity of the petitioner in the instant matter. He further submits that the village Chaukidar, is having personal grudge against the petitioner. Lastly he prayed to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. As per allegation levelled in the FIR, the forged and fake arms license has been recovered from the house of accused, regarding this a report was called for from District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram from where report has been come vide letter no. 134 dated 25.01.2025 in which it has been reported that the said license no. 1418/08 was not genuine document rather said license has not been issued in the name of petitioner - Yogendra

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65329 of 2024(5) dt.02-04-2025 3/3 Choudhary. So it is a forged and fake document. In case diary at para 5, 6 and 7, witnesses have supported the allegation leveled in the FIR. Investigation is still going on. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.

8. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court who will consider his bail application on its own merit without being prejudiced from this order. Considering the absence of any criminal history as mentioned in case dairy at para 18 of the bail petition.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) prabhakar/- U T