Md. Rustam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2251 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2021 Thana- NIMACHANDPURA District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1.

Md. Rustam Son of Md. Idrish @ Md. Idris Resident of Village - Kushamaut, P.S. - Neemachandpura, District - Begusarai. 2.

Md. Rabban @ Bhulla @ Rabban Son of Puro Milan Resident of Village - Kushamaut, P.S. - Neemachandpura, District - Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-07-2022 Heard both parties.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Neemachandpura P.S. Case No. 63 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 323 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, petitioners and coaccused Ibrahim are alleged to have assaulted the informant by means of sword on her hand as a result of which she sustained injury and also torn her clothes. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 1 and co-accused Ibrahim assaulted Md. Mukhtar by Hansuli causing injury over his right leg and petitioner no. 2 inflicted dagger blow upon Md. Tanbir on his leg who came to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2251 of 2022(2) dt.26-07-2022 2/2 rescue the informant.

It is submitted that there is case and counter case. One Md. Asharaf who happens to be the uncle of petitioners lodged a case bearing Neemachandpura PS Case No. 62 of 2021 against son of informant Md. Noor Islam and others. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

Counsel for informant however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation against petitioners of assault and injuries are found to be grievous in nature.

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of injuries, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T