Patna High CourtCR. MISC./84647/2023dismissed

Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-07Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84647 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-439 Year-2023 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Son of Sri arjun gop @ Arjun yadav Resident of villageGanjpar, P.s Harnaut,(O.P gokulpur) Dist- Nalanda (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Saket Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Harnaut P.S. Case No. 439 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections-341, 323, 387, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that while one Yogendra Sah demanded money as cost of the cigarette taken by the accused persons, they started abusing and assaulting him. Firing is also said to have been made in the occurrence.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. As a matter of fact, no such occurrence as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84647 of 2023(3) dt.07-03-2024 2/2 alleged in the FIR, has taken place. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident as the FIR has been lodged on the basis of hearsay statement of the informant.

5. On the other hand, Shri J. N. Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner has got six criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, specifically the criminal antecedents of six cases, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders in the court blow and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T