Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82288/2023dismissed

Pappu Kunal v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-05Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82288 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2023 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== PAPPU KUNAL S/O SURAT SINGH @ SURAJDEV SINGH R/OADALPUR, PS. HAJIPUR SADAR, DISTT.VAISHALI. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-03-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hajipur Nagar P.S. Case No. 175 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 307, 354, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation, in the first episode, the accused persons named in the FIR including the petitioner asked the informant to operate D.J., on which the informant refused and the accused persons went from there. In the next episode, the accused persons came at the door of the informant and started abusing and assaulting him. When the family members of the informant came to rescue, they were also assaulted. Firing is also alleged to have been made in the occurrence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82288 of 2023(3) dt.05-03-2024 2/2

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation against him is general and omnibus. He has submitted further that the allegation of assault is on co-accused Raj Kumar Mental and not against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that paragraph 51 of the case diary itself shows that the injuries suffered by the injured are grievous in nature, as such, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege for anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Kundan/- U T