Santu Tiwari @ Sintu Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3141 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2021 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

SANTU TIWARI @ SINTU TIWARI Son of Late Rampravesh Tiwari Resident of Village - Parsa tole, Tiwari Bigha, P.S. - Aurangabad Muffassil, District - Aurangabad (Bihar).

2.

Dilip Tiwari Son of Late Nageshwar Tiwari Resident of Village - Parsa tole, Tiwari Bigha, P.S. - Aurangabad Muffassil, District - Aurangabad (Bihar). 3.

Dharmendra Tiwari Son of Late Nageshwar Tiwari Resident of Village - Parsa tole, Tiwari Bigha, P.S. - Aurangabad Muffassil, District - Aurangabad (Bihar).

... ... Petitioners.

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Leelawati Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Prasad Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Muffasil P.S. case No. 239/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3141 of 2022(2) dt.12-07-2022 2/2 Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is case and counter case between the parties.

Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the injuries sustained by the victim are grievous in nature. It is further submitted that allegations levelled against the petitioners is serious in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case as also considering the nature of injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T