Narendra Paswan @ Pappu Paswan @ Papu Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8637 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2023 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Narendra Paswan @ Pappu Paswan @ Papu Paswan S/o Jai Prakash Paswan Resident of Village- Jagwaliya, P.S.- Arrah (Muffasil), District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Chandan Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Choubey Jawahar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 21-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner to obtain pre-arrest bail in connection with Arrah (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.206 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 379 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
3. Earlier the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.10.2023 passed in Cr.Misc.No.57858 of 2023. The reasons for rejection has been provided in paragraph '6' of the order which reads as under:- "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there being a specific allegation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8637 of 2025(2) dt.21-02-2025 2/2 causing assault on the head of the father of the informant by a dab against Pappu Paswan, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to Pappu Paswan (petitioner no.2). His prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected."
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though he does not dispute that the father of the informant had suffered injury but his submission is that he had fallen down in a 'Nad' as a result whereof he had suffered injury.
5. This Court is afraid that on such ground a second anticipatory bail cannot be entertained.
6. This application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T