High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 03 PAT CK 0035

Ashok Yadav @ Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 16 March 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 69725 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 284 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared.

2.

As per the earlier order, the application is restricted to petitioner no. 2.

3.

The petitioner no. 2 apprehends arrest in connection with Phulparas PS Case No. 138 of 2018 dated 03.07.2018 instituted under Sections 147, 148,

149, 341, 385, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

4.

The allegation against the petitioner no. 2 with another co-accused is of firing on the father of the informant.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submitted that the first medical report did not find any firearm injury and the doctor has found simple injury

caused by hard blunt substance. It was submitted that only on the direction of the IG, a Medical Board was constituted, which has given a different

medical report. Learned counsel submitted that there is land dispute between the parties for which a title suit is also pending and the father of the

petitioners have earlier filed Phulparas PS Case No. 120 of 2012, against the informant and his family members.

6.

Learned APP, from the case diary and learned counsel for the informant submitted that the Medical Board has found gun shot injury on the left leg

and right ankle on the father of the informant and that against the petitioner no. 2 there is specific allegation of having fired on him, which stands

corroborated.

7.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge

the petitioner no. 2 on anticipatory bail.