Dismissed¶21

Arbind Yadav @ Mina v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Mar 2024CR. MISC./1111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused — Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No. 1111 of 2024 (Partha Sarthy, J.; 21-03-2024); petitioner Arbind Yadav @ Mina; Warisliganj P.S. Case No. 289 of 2023, District Nawada; IPC Sections 307, 341, 324 and 34; FIR alleges petitioner's firing caused informant gunshot injury to right thigh; custody since 19.6.2023; chargesheet submitted; renewal of bail prayer permitted after six months or framing of charge, whichever is later; defence urged false implication, non-vital-part injury, single shot; State represented by A.P.P. Binod Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to renew the prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later. ¶21

Arbind Yadav @ Mina Vs the State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1111 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2023 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada

¶3

======================================================

¶4

ARBIND YADAV @ MINA SON OF KAPIL YADAV R/O VILLAGERAMPUR, P.S.- WARISALIGANJ, DISTRICT- NAWADA

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 21-03-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶14

grant of regular bail in connection with Warisliganj P.S. Case no. 289 of 2023 registered under sections 307, 341, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, it is stated that as a result of firing resorted to by the petitioner, the informant sustained gunshot injury in his right thigh.

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The manner of occurrence is other than what has been narrated in the FIR. There is no repetition of firing and the injury is on a non-vital part of the body. The petitioner is in custody since 19.6.2023 and chargesheet has been submitted in

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1111 of 2024(4) dt.21-03-2024 2/2

¶18

the case.

¶19

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶21

taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. according to which as a result of firing resorted to by the petitioner, the informant sustained gunshot injury in his right thigh, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶22

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge whichever is later.

¶23

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶24

Bibhash

Arbind Yadav @ Mina v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arbind Yadav @ Mina v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Sah Vs the State of Bihar

Sakaldev Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sanullah Ansari @ Sainullah Vs The State of Bihar

Birju Ravidas @ Birju Ram Vs the State of Bihar

Dhandhar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar