Dismissed

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Oct 2024CR. MISC./60442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by a petitioner accused of firing at and injuring an informant's brother during a village dispute under IPC and Arms Act offences. The court noted the specific accusation of firearm injury and rejected anticipatory bail, while observing the petitioner may seek regular bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60442 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2024 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada

¶3

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

¶4

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav Son Of Pradeep Yadav Resident Of Village - Budhauli, P.S. - Pakribarawan, District - Nawada

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶8

2 05-10-2024

¶9

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State as well as the learned Advocate for the informant.

¶10

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 231 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 326, 307, 448, 504, 506, 379 and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶11

In course of a dispute, as has arisen between the children of both the sides, the petitioner along with Arvind Yadav and Jaykaran Yadav armed with pistol came there and started abusing and assaulting. The allegation against the petitioner is of causing firearm injury below the right leg of informant’s brother Uttam Singh . There is further allegation

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60442 of 2024(2) dt.05-10-2024 2/3

¶13

against other co-accused person of causing assault.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the narratives made in the FIR clearly suggest that on account of a trifle, both the parties have entered in a free fight and unfortunately, the brother of the informant has sustained injury, which is not on account of firing, but only in order to implicate the name of the petitioner, it has shown that he sustained injury due to firearm. It is next contended that even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the brother of the informant has sustained firearm injury, the same has been found to be simple in nature. It is also the contention of the petitioner that both the parties are co-villagers and only on account of enmity, the petitioner has been named in the case. However, the petitioner undertakes that he will fully co-operate in the proceeding of the Court.

¶15

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State as well as the informant opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the brother of the informant was fortunate enough that he has sustained firearm injury just below the knee. Had it been hit on a vital part, he might be lend in trouble. It is next contended that one of the co-accused person, namely, Jaykaran Yadav has been granted the privilege of

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60442 of 2024(2) dt.05-10-2024 3/3

¶17

regular bail by this Court and the petitioner also deserves the same treatment.

¶18

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the specific nature of accusation of causing firearm injury to the brother of the informant, though below the knee, this Court is not persuaded to accede the prayer for anticipatory bail and accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶19

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and seek a regular bail in the light of the fact that co-accused person has been granted the privilege of regular bail and the injury being found to be simple in nature.

¶20

The application stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶21

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶22

shivank/-

¶23

U T

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piyus Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ameeraka Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Lalbabu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Golu Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kishori Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Madhu Singh Vs The State of Bihar