Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5805 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-682 Year-2016 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria ====================================================== SUNIL YADAV @ SUNIL KUMAR YADAV SON OF SHIV NANDAN YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - MATHAR DIYARA, P.S. - MUFFSIL, DISTRICT - KHAGARIYA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Chandan Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khagariya (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 682 of 2016 for the offence registered under sections 341, 342, 307 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 01.12.2016 by the informant Rajiv Yadav
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on 29.11.2016 while the informant alongwith other was going to house by motor cycle, the accused persons including the petitioner intercepted the informant and started opening fire upon the informant which hit at his right thigh. Accordingly, the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5805 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2024 2/2
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though earlier he had moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 37080 of 2018 and after its rejection could not surrender, now the parties have compromised necessitating the second anticipatory bail.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that the matter is of year, 2016, anticipatory bail rejected in the year 2018 and instead of surrendering before the concerned Court and abiding by the rule of law, in the garb of compromise, six years later, this anticipatory bail which deserves rejection.
6. Taking into account the fact that eight years later, the second anticipatory bail has been filed despite the fact that in the year, 2018, there has been rejection of anticipatory bail of this petitioner, he is not entitled to any relief.
7. Cr. Misc. No. 5805 of 2024 stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U