IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.890 of 2011
RABODH KUMAR RAI Son of late Dhanik Rai,
resident of village Rasalpur, Police Station Patori,
District Samastipur ... ... Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR... .. OPPOSITE PARTY
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanhaiya Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. U.S.P.Singh, APP
-----------
2 13.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for offences punishable under sections 302, 324,
307, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections
25(1-b)A, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and section 3(X)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
As per the allegation, during dance in a Barat
some altercation took place between the parties and co-
accused Binod Rai as well as Amod Rai and Subodh Rai
fired from their guns causing injuring Rajiv Paswan and
Jaswant Paswan and one of them died. It is alleged that the
gun shot of Amod Rai alias Subodh Rai had hit one Jaswant
Paswan.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
2
petitioner submitted that in fact, he is not Amod Rai or
Subodh Rai, rather he is Rabodh Kumar Rai son of late
Dhanik Rai and the person, who has been described as
Amod Rai alias Subodh Rai, has been shown to be son of
Wakil Rai, therefore, it has been submitted that the
petitioner cannot be held to be participating in the
occurrence, which had led to killing one person and injuring
others. It is further urged that even if he is presumed to have
fired injuring one, that should be taken as an accident.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that that
if warrant of arrest had been issued against Amod Rai son of
Dhanik Rai and if the petitioner is not the aforesaid Amod
Rai, there is no apprehension of arrest, so far he is
concerned. However, if the petitioner and Amod Rai are one
and the same and there is direct allegation upon him of
resorting to firing injuring Jaswant Paswan.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the nature of allegation, this Court would not be
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
As a result, this application stands dismissed.
SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)