Sayeed Ansari @ Md. Sayeed Ansari @Md.Sahid Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18031 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2020 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar ====================================================== SAYEED ANSARI @ MD. SAYEED ANSARI @MD.SAHID ANSARI SON OF MOHAMMAD ANSARI, R/O - NAYATOLA, BISHANPUR, P.S.- KORHA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-01-2022 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 Korha P.S. Case No. 319 of 2020 registered for offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the present petitioner inflicted Farsa blow on the head of informant Md. Kudus Ansari. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18031 of 2021(4) dt.25-01-2022 2/2 that the petitioner and the injured are own brothers. There is dispute between both the parties. He has also submitted that there is counter case as Korha P.S. Case No. 320 of 2020. The allegation against the petitioner Md. Sayeed is that he assaulted the injured, who was initially treated at Korha Swasthya Kendra and thereafter, he was referred to Katihar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Katihar has referred that the injury of injured was of fracture in frontal bone involving walls of right frontal sinus with adjacent extracalvarial soft tissue swelling. It has also been mentioned that due to assault, the injured has lost his voice. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail and accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) Mahesh/- U T