← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3689/2024bail rejected

Vinod Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-13Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3689 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-636 Year-2022 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== VINOD CHAUHAN SON OF LATE RAM CHARITRA CHAUHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - AURE BELDARIYA, POLICE STATION - RAMGARH CHOWK, DISTRICT - LAKHISARAI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lakhisarai (Ramgarh Chowk) P.S. Case No. 636 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that even the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and there is no specific allegation of assault against the petitioner.

4. The learned APP for the State vehemently rebuts

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3689 of 2024(2) dt.13-02-2024 2/2 the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that there is specific allegation of causing firearm injury to Lalit Chauhan by the petitioner. The learned APP next submits that even the pleadings in the anticipatory bail application does not plead that there is no firearm injury to the injured.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, the present application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T