Ramesh Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74457 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2024 Thana- SANJHOLI District- Rohtas ====================================================== Ramesh Chaudhary S/O Rajbali Chaudhary Resident of Village-Charpurwa @ Charpurva, P.O- Rajpur,Police Station Sanjhauli,District-Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 307 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The instant FIR has been lodged by one Laxman Singh, who has alleged that on 22.06.2024 at about 10:30 AM, the petitioner came in the village of the informant with his double barrel gun and seeing the informant, on account of some earlier dispute, he resorted to firing upon him, but the informant managed to hide himself. It is further alleged that the petitioner fired 2-3 rounds and thereafter, fled away from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74457 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2025 2/3 allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false. The matter of the fact is that there was a dispute regarding money transaction between the parties and just to avoid recovery proceedings for the said amount and with a view to grab the money of the petitioner, the present FIR has been instituted by the informant. It is further submitted that neither any empty cartridge nor live bullets have been recovered from the place of occurrence, which is also evident from the seizure list which is attached to the FIR. The allegation of firing levelled against the petitioner is totally false since no injury was caused to anyone.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and pointed out towards para nos. 10, 11 and 38 of the case diary in which the witnesses have supported the case as stated in the FIR. Learned APP for the State has also pointed out towards the criminal antecedent of the petitioner to which learned counsel for the petitioner has responded by submitting that the petitioner had been made accused in only one case that too in the year 1998 and now, in the same, he is on bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the facts that there was money transaction related dispute between the parties, neither any empty cartridge nor live bullets have been recovered from the place of occurrence and no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74457 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2025 3/3 injury was caused to anyone, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Sasaram at Rohtas in connection with Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 113 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023.
7. The learned Court below is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para 3 of the bail application, this order will automatically loose its force.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) divyanshi/- U T