← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3568/2022bail rejected

Indrajit Sharma @ Surma Bhopali v. The State Of Bihar

2022-08-11Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3568 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2021 Thana- HULASGANJ District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

INDRAJIT SHARMA @ SURMA BHOPALI Son of Late Rajnandan Singh Resident of Village - Kandaul, P.s.- Hulasganj, Distt.- Jehanabad. 2.

Ampu Sharma @ Yogesh Sharma Son of Indrajit Sharma Resident of Village - Kandaul, P.s.- Hulasganj, Distt.- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Hulasganj P.S.Case No. 154 of 2021.

As per allegation, the accused persons including the petitioners started assaulting the informant with knife, khanti and lathi etc. and when he fell down on the ground, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3568 of 2022(2) dt.11-08-2022 2/2 accused persons also assaulted him with knife. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and six months prior to the occurrence, one Ruby Devi had lodged a case against the informant and his family members. There are six cases against petitioner no.1 and ten cases against petitioner no.2. Both the petitioners are persons of strong criminal antecedent. The petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected. They are directed to surrender in the court below. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

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