Birbal Chaudhary @ Bir Bahadur Chouhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5699 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2020 Thana- KOCHAS District- Rohtas ====================================================== Birbal Chaudhary @ Bir Bahadur Chouhan S/o Suggi Chauhan Vill - Baradih Tola, Mahuari, PS - Kargahar, Dist - Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indradeo Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari, 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 Kochas P.S. No. 154 of 2020 for the offence registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323, 504, 506, 307, 354, 379, 325 and 427 of the Indian Penal and Section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 22.08.2020 by the informant Arvind Kumar Singh.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on a petty issue, the accused persons surrounded and when the villagers wanted them to do anything in a peaceful atmosphere, the allegation is that the accused persons resorted to assault and allegation against Pappu Chauhan is of giving 'lathi' blow on his head causing injury. They also resorted to firing and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5699 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 the petitioner is one of them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main allegation is against Pappu Chauhan of causing head injury to the informant. Omnibus allegation has been made against all the accused persons including the petitioner herein. Further, submission is that he concede that he has criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, points out that the case is of the year 2020 and four years later, this anticipatory bail. He further submits that in that background, it would be appropriate that the petitioner seeks bail as there is allegation of indiscriminate firing and further he also has criminal antecedent of same nature.

6. Considering the submissions put forward by the parties as also the delay in approaching this Court for grant of anticipatory bail which is four years, it would be appropriate that the petitioner seeks bail.

7. Cr. Misc. No. 5699 of 2024 stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U T