Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62355 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2019 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

SONU KUMAR Son of Ashok Yadav @ Ashok Kumar Resident of Village - Kalyanpur, P.S. - Fatuha, District - Patna 2.

Deepak Kumar Son of Jitendra Kahar Resident of Village - Nohta, P.S. - Fatuha, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Harish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Prem Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No.155 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 385, 307 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Patna City, Patna. The accusation is that when the brother of the informant was going to the market, the petitioners made demand of ransom to him. When the brother of the informant made protest, then the petitioners fired through pistol at his left hand, due to which he sustained firearm injury at his hand. On alarm

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62355 of 2019(2) dt.15-10-2019 2/2 being raised by the villagers when the informant reached there, both the petitioners fled away.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that while there is general allegation against the petitioners to make firing at the brother of the informant but only one injury on the index finger of the left hand of the brother of the informant was found, which is said to be caused by firearm. However, the opinion regarding the nature of the injury was not given.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U