Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Gope v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73740 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-541 Year-2019 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Gope, Son of Dilip Prasad @ Munna Resident of Village - Rasalpur, P.S.- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 05-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No.541 of 2019, registered, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 120(B), 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused person formed an unlawful assembly and fired upon Samir Kumar @ Tantan, which caused gun shot injury near the elbow of the victim.

Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73740 of 2019(3) dt.05-03-2020 2/2 been implicated in this case inasmuch as occurrence had allegedly taken place on 11.08.2019 but the present FIR has been filed on 13.08.2019, i.e., after delay of about one and a half day. Learned counsel further submits that the firing made by the petitioner has caused injury on the non-vital part of the victim, i.e., near his elbow. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State referring to the case diary and antecedent report submits that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent and four cases have been lodged against the petitioner out of which in one case, the petitioner has been acquitted.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of firing upon the victim which hit the victim near his elbow and the petitioner has got criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.

sanjeev/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U