Chhotu Kumar Yadav @ Amaresh Kumar Yadav @Chhotu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72207 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2021 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar Yadav @ Amaresh Kumar Yadav @ Chhotu Yadav Son of Fatto Yadav @ Pitambar Yadav Resident of village - Madheli, Jarlahi, P.S. - Barari, District - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Narsingh Tanti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-08-2022 Heard both parties.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kursela P.S. Case No. 124 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 393 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution case, this petitioner along with two other accused persons demanded ransom and on refusal they fired upon the informant causing firearm injury. It is submitted that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Entire prosecution case is out and out a false case and the investigating officer himself mentioned in para 6 that he deputed and directed his spy to search out the name and address of the miscreants and inform to the police station and from para
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72207 of 2021(4) dt.10-08-2022 2/2 13 of the case diary it appears that he met with the spy at the place of occurrence who disclosed the name of the miscreants as such the name mentioned in the FIR has not been disclosed by the present informant and the police implicated the petitioner. Only on suspicion petitioner has been made accused in this case. However, counsel for informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and has got criminal antecedent of similar nature. Considering the facts aforesaid and criminal antecedents of similar nature, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T