Punyadev Yadav @ Pundev Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3671 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2022 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== PUNYADEV YADAV @ PUNDEV YADAV Son of Late Jainandan Yadav @ Jainandan Rai R/v- Chainpur Chiutahan, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-08-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case.

4. The informant alleges that on order of Punyadeo Yadav, accused Ranjit snatched the arms from his brother Ranveer and fired causing injury to the minor nephew of the informant who died.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that petitioner is alleged to be an order

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3671 of 2023(5) dt.18-08-2023 2/2 giver, it is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that had the petitioner asked Ranjit to jump from 10th floor of a building whether Ranjit would have jumped. It is next submitted that it is the easiest way to implicate someone who has not committed any overt act, is to allege that it was at his instance that the occurrence was committed. It is further submitted that petitioner is not alleged to have fired rather specific allegation of firing is against Ranjit.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 188 of 2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T