Raj Kishor Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12407 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2019 Thana- DARIYAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

RAJ KISHOR RAI Son of Kanhaiya Rai Resident of Village- Tarwa Mangarpal, P.S.- Dariyapur, Distt- Saran (Chapra) 2.

Satyendra Kumar Rai @ Satyendra Kumar Son of Yogendra Rai Resident of Village- Tarwa Mangarpal, P.S.- Dariyapur, Distt- Saran (Chapra) 3.

Sushil Kumar Rai @ Sushil Rai @ Shushil Kumar Son of Late Manoj Rai Resident of Village- Tarwa Mangarpal, P.S.- Dariyapur, Distt- Saran (Chapra) ... ... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-12-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 163 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant has lodged his fardbeyan in injured

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12407 of 2021(2) dt.24-12-2021 2/2 condition in Referral Hospital, Sonpur stating therein that he was a polling agent of a political party on the occasion of Loksabha election. As per allegation, the petitioners abused him and threatened him to leave the polling booth and on denial the accused persons including the petitioners badly assaulted him. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to political rivalry.

The learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

As per allegation the petitioners not only assaulted the informant but also restricted the informant from discharging his duty. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T