Pawan Kumar Yadav @ Pawan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2634 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-413 Year-2020 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Pawan Kumar Yadav @ Pawan Yadav Son of Rajo Yadav Resident of Village - Shishwa, P.S. - Gogari, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 504, 506, 385, 387, 307, 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 22.11.2020 at about 09:00 PM, while he was at his house, in the meantime, all FIR named accused persons armed with weapons arrived there, abused him in filthy language and demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from him as extortion money. It is further alleged that on the same day around 09:30 PM, all three accused again reached the house of the informant assaulted him, fired shots and looted gold ornaments.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2634 of 2025(3) dt.09-05-2025 2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. It is further submitted that from bare perusal of FIR as well as entire evidence it appears that there is specific allegation of demand of extortion against other co-accused namely Laltu Yadav and Jawaharlal Yadav and so far allegation against the petitioner is concerned, he was present only with other co-accused persons.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the fact that it has come in Case Diary that the petitioner was brandishing country made pistol and he was also involved in loot of the gold ornaments, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T