Muneshwar Natraj @ Munna v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8136 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2021 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

Muneshwar Natraj @ Munna S/O Late Budha Nut Resident Of VillageAmari (Talab) P.S.- Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas 2.

Rameshwar Natraj @ Rameshwar Ram S/O Late Budha Nut Resident Of Village- Amari (Talab) P.S.- Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas 3.

Dhanjay Natraj @ Dhananjay Natraj S/O Late Budha Nat Resident Of Village- Amari (Talab) P.S.- Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas 4.

Dhanu Natraj S/O Muneshwar Natraj Resident Of Village- Amari (Talab) P.S.- Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, these petitioners along with other co-accused persons assaulted father of the informant by means of iron rod due to which he sustained injury on head and jaw.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8136 of 2022(4) dt.18-10-2022 2/2 present case. It is submitted that simple altercation took place between the parties due to old enmity and village politics. There is general and omnibus allegation of assault against these petitioners without any specific overt act. It is further submitted that prior to this case Minu Devi, cousin sister of petitioner no. 1, had lodged Sasaram P. S. Case No. 269 of 2020 and Priyanka Devi, daughter of petitioner no. 1, had lodged Sasaram P. S. Case No. 66 of 2021 against the informant and his family members.

However, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail application submitting that there is specific allegation of assault against these petitioners as a result of which injured Kariman Natraj, father of the informant, sustained grievous injury.

Considering the aforesaid facts, prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused with direction to surrender and seek regular bail which would be considered and disposed of on its own merit without prejudice.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) navya/- U T