Ajit Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26212 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2017 Thana -OBRA District- AURANGABAD =========================================================== Ajit Kumar Yadav Son of Chunmun Yadav, Resident of Muhalla- Sabji Mandi, P.S.-Obra, District Aurangabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, A.P.P.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Obra P.S. Case No. 55 of 2017 dated 02.04.2017 instituted under Sections 25(1B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of demanding extortion from the informant, who is a cloth merchant and thereafter assault by pistol.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are not correct for the reason that if the petitioner had a pistol in his hand, he would have stayed there and not run away and could not have left his motorcycle. It was further submitted that the petitioner and the informant are neighbors and due to some petty

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26212 of 2017 dt.01-07-2017 2/2 dispute, he has been falsely implicated.

5. Learned A.P.P. submitted that there is no cause of false implication and moreover when the parties are neighbours, as no neighbour would want to have bitter relationship with his neighbour. It was further submitted that the petitioner has just come out of jail which indicates that he has the habit of committing such offence.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T