Mithlesh Kumar Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1251 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2024 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Mithlesh Kumar Bharti Gulten Prasad @ Gurudev Prasad Bharti VillageTaufir Tamganj Panchayat- Farhi Ps- Narpatganj Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-02-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 252 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354(B), 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that the accused persons including the petitioner came while she was cutting firewood, further the accused started throwing the firewood, on protest, petitioner dashed her on the ground and assaulted by leg and fist, it is further alleged that petitioner also assaulted the husband of the informant namely Birendra by an iron rod causing injury on head while Naresh assaulted Birendra by lathi on his chest (Panjra), on which Birendra became unconscious, further when his daughter came to save them, the accused behaved inappropriately with her and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1251 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2025 2/2 petitioner assaulted her also by fist, further accused also assaulted Hiranand by farsa causing injury on head and petitioner also assaulted Arun by sword causing injury on head.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case on account of dispute relating to land.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner is alleged to have assaulted Birendra by iron rod causing injury on head, further the order impugned records that the injury suffered by Birendra is grievous in nature which amply demonstrates that the force used by the petitioner for committing the occurrence was such that it caused grievous injury on vital part of the body of the injured.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T