Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5782/2019dismissed

Keshav Kumar @ Mintu v. The State Of Bihar

2019-03-08Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5782 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2018 Thana- HATHAURI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Keshav Kumar @ Mintu, Male, aged about 42 years, Son of Shri Narendra Thakur @ Nagendra Thakur, Resident of Village- Vishambhar Patti. P.S.- Hathurai, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Hathauri P.S. Case No. 237 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 325, 341, 379, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant has alleged that on 14.11.2018 while he along with his uncle Surendra Thakur reached at his village, in the meantime, all FIR named accused including petitioner demanded Rs. 5,000/- and when he made protest, Nagendra Thakur gave order for killing on which petitioner inflicted rod blow on his head causing grievous injury and Vikash Kumar also inflicted rod blow causing fractured injury on his right thumb and on raising hulla, they fled away and during that course, Ram Babu Thakur snatched golden chain.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5782 of 2019(4) dt.08-03-2019 2/2 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to old dispute. Petitioner is in custody since 15.11.2018.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, after completing one year of the custody, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail.

(S. Kumar, J) Rajiv/- U T