Sanjeet Chaudhary @ Dara v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66335 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2023 Thana- AZIMABAD District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Sanjeet Chaudhary @ Dara Son Of Rajendra Chaudhary Resident Of Village - Nurpur, P.S. - Azimabad, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Azimabad P.S. Case No. 23 of 2023 lodged under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 27 Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against 5 named accused persons including the petitioner. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant's son was injured by gun shot. The son of the informant has disclosed that 5 named accused persons including the petitioner have started fighting with him and abused as well as in furtherance with common intention has fired on the informant's son.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66335 of 2023(2) dt.16-10-2023 2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2023 having clean antecedent. He also submits that one of the co-accused has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.06.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.37192 of 2023.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the content of the F.I.R., it is very much clear that initial dispute took place and subsequently, the accused persons further reached on the place of occurrence in connivance with each other with furtherance of common intention.
6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) prakashmani/- U T