← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9791/2019rejected

Pawan Mandal @ Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Mandal And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2019-05-01Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9791 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2017 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Pawan Mandal @ Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Mandal, Son of Dharmdeo Mandal, Resident of Village Paikpar, Ward No.6, P.S. Bhargama District Araria.

2.

Amit Mandal @ Amit Kumar, Son of Late Nabal Mandal, Resident of Village Paikpar, Ward No.6, P.S. Bhargama, District Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pancha Nand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2019 Heard both sides.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Bhargama P.S. Case No.79 of 2017, registered under Section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The prayer for anticipatory bail petition of the petitioners was earlier rejected as the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw anticipatory bail petition of the petitioners and accordingly the same was dismissed as withdrawn but the petitioner again filed this anticipatory bail petition on the ground that the case has been compromised. There is specific allegation against both the petitioners that they assaulted Lalan Pandey and Arvind Pandey

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9791 of 2019(3) dt.01-05-2019 2/2 who got many injuries out of which they also got grievous injuries and their hands were also found fractured. Taking into consideration the fact that on account of assault made by the petitioners, grievous injuries were caused to Lalan Pandey and Arvind Pandey, once again I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T