IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4829 of 2010 CHUNNU YADAV @ ANKIT YADAV @ ANKIT ANAND, SON OF BIPIN YADAV @ BINODANAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SALIGRAMI, POLICE STATION-SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI (BIHAR)…………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………….OPPOSITE PARTY. --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate. For the State : Mr. U.S.P. Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. --------- 3. 18.5.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner and the informant are agnates and there had been dispute between the female members of the family of both sides, which would be apparent from the First Information Report, which led to the alleged occurrence. In - 2 - fact, it was not a deliberate firing but accidentally the pellet had hit the injured. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 1.12.2009. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of firing upon the injured lady which had hit the vital part and in the process she had lost her left eye. The injury is grievous in nature. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case and the gravity of nature of allegation and the injury upon the victim, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Thus, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected for the present. However, if so advised, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)