Patna High CourtCR. MISC./64679/2024withdrawn

Guddu Kumar Singh @ Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-17Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64679 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2024 Thana- PIRO District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Guddu Kumar Singh @ Guddu Kumar S/o- Gyani Singh @ Galendra Singh Resident of Village- Sedahan Police Station-Tarari, Dist- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Piro P.S. Case No. 250 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 & 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.

4. The informant alleges that he along with his brother on 14.06.2024 went to Piro for getting his grandmother treated, in a hospital where he received a call from petitioner at 10:27 am asking him to come out of the hospital, accordingly the informant came out and saw four named accused persons excluding the petitioner, gazing at him, thereafter Jai and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64679 of 2024(2) dt.17-10-2024 2/2 Shubham fired causing injury on left side of his chest.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then petitioner is not alleged to have fired, but then fairly submits that informant alleges that petitioner had called him outside the hospital when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing vehemently for some time realizing his difficulty seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application.

7. Permission is accorded.

8. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) annpurna/- U T