High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 02 PAT CK 0106

Md. Johny @ Md. Murad vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 28 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6437 Of 2020

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

18 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Sultanganj PS Case No. 173 of 2019 dated 26.07.2019 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 307,

379, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner and five others is that he had allured the informant to come with him and had taken him to a secluded garden

where three other accused had come and after snatching the mobile and purse of the informant had also tried to shoot him but the informant while

trying to snatch the gun was hit on the back of the head due to which he fainted and all the accused had gone away thinking him to be dead but upon

gaining sense, the informant had gone home from where he was taken to the hospital for treatment and where his statement was recorded by the

police.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had just taken the informant to roam about in the garden and was not involved in any criminal

activity nor was in collusion with the three assailants who had later come to the spot. It was submitted that due to the other three accused committing

the crime and also having the gun, the petitioner had fled away to save his life out of fear, but he has no complicity in the episode. Learned counsel

pointed out that similarly situated co-accused Md. Safi Alam has been granted anticipatory bail today by a coordinate bench of this Court.

5.

Learned APP submitted that the fact that even afterwards the petitioner did not return to the spot to see as to what happened to the informant and

also not informing the police about the incident, which was serious in nature as the other three accused had firearm with them, clearly indicates his

role in the crime.

6.

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 on anticipatory bail.

7.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.