Ranjit Mukhiya @ Ramjit Mukhiya @ Ramit Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9024 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2023 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Ranjit Mukhiya @ Ramjit Mukhiya @ Ramit Mukhiya Son of Nagina Mukhiya Resident of Village- Naya Basti Belbag, P.S.-Yogapatti (Sanichari), Distt.-West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Yogapatti Sanichari P.S. case No. 258 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 379, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that owing to land dispute which the informant was objected, the accused persons including the informant assaulted the informant due to which he sustained injury. It is further alleged that the petitioner assaulted the informant with garasa on his head. The family member came in rescue were also assaulted by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9024 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/3 the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is a case and counter case between the parties. It is alleged that the petitioner inflicted garasa blow on the informant. There is no repetition of the same. Learned counsel further submits that the injury is caused by hard and blunt substance whereas allegation is made of injury caused by sharp cut weapon named garasa. The injury report does not corroborate with the version of the F.I.R. Further there is delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. The petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2023 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the petitioner having clean antecedent, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9024 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 3/3 two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Yogapatti Sanichari P.S. case No. 258 of 2023.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Pankaj/- U T