Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83535/2024dismissed

Sharwan Chaudhary @ Shravan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-13Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83535 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-421 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Sharwan Chaudhary @ Shravan Kumar Son of Anandi Chaudhary @ Anand Choudhary R/O Vill.- Bhadeja, P.S.- Mufassil, Dist.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mrigendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rana Randhir Singh , learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 421/2024 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 386, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other arrived at the shop of the informant and demanded Rangdari, after this, the informant was pushed. When the informant objected, he was being assaulted with the gun-pointed on him. It is further alleged that one Ranjan Paswan took Rs. Sixty Thousand Eight

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83535 of 2024(2) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 Hundred from the cash box.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the nature of allegation is general and omnibus and the specific allegation is against co-accused Ranjan Paswan.

5. In contra, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has got criminal antecedent in nine cases.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Krishnakant/- U T