Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(From The Official Chambers Via Video Conferencing) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13137 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2020 Thana- SARE District- Nalanda ====================================================== PANKAJ KUMAR Son of Bhuneshwar Mahto Resident of Village - Gilani, P.S.- Sare, District - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Aprajita, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the Informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sare P.S. Case No. 89 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 504, 307, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant, Lalita Devi, lodged the FIR stating therein that the present petitioner Pankaj Kumar, Guriya Devi and Rajiya Devi started abusing her and they assaulted her by butt of pistol and lathi. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he inflicted injury with butt of pistol on the left side of eye of the informant, sustaining

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13137 of 2021(2) dt.07-01-2022 2/2 that injury she got unconscious.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent and there is a land dispute between the informant and the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioner was referred to Referral Hospital and the injury found on the person of the informant is grievous in nature and the injury is attributed against the petitioner.

In these circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner 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