Vinod Kumar @ Vinodi Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18069 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2019 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== VINOD KUMAR @ VINODI YADAV S/O LATE BRIJMOHAN @ DEVA YADAV @ BRIJMOHAN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-ERKI MDARPUR, P.S-JEHANABAD, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2022 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 279 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under sections 342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant is mother of Ayush Kumar aged about 8 years. Allegation against the present petitioner is that he badly dashed Ayush Kumar on the road twice and made him badly injured.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18069 of 2021(2) dt.21-01-2022 2/2 there is delay of four months in lodging the FIR. The reason of delay has been explained in the FIR itself. The informant has stated that when her son became injured, she treated him in Sadar Hospital Jehanabad. Thereafter, when she went for lodging the FIR, the S.H.O. although assured that he has lodged the case, but actually he did not lodge the case and has ousted the informant from the police station. Thereafter, she filed an application before the D.I.G. and on that basis, the present case has been lodged. The injury report has been mentioned in the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, which appears that the injury sustained by Ayush Kumar is grievous in nature.

In these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail and accordingly his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

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