Patna High CourtCR. MISC./13752/2021bail rejected

Anup Kumar Dubey v. The State Of Bihar

2021-09-23Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13752 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2018 Thana- AGRER District- Rohtas ====================================================== Anup Kumar Dubey, Son of Sri Chandeshwar Dubey, Resident of VillageKundwa, P.S.- Agrer, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ras Bihari Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 23-09-2021 The matter has been taken up today for consideration through video conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Agrer P.S. Case No.36 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 and 504 the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Rohtas at Sasaram.

There is an allegation against the petitioner of assaulting his father, who is the informant, with knife. Petitioner's counsel submits that all the witnesses in the investigation are family members. He submits that implication is based on some dispute regarding partition.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13752 of 2021(5) dt.23-09-2021 2/2 Petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2020.

Referring to the case diary, which was requisitioned earlier, learned APP submits that injury report shows repeated blows by sharp-cutting weapon. Informant is the father and there is specific allegation that the instant petitioner (his son) has stabbed him.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the rival submissions, for the present, having regard to the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected. It is needless to say that the trial court should proceed with the trial expeditiously.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T