Vishal Pandey @ Vishal Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7666 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2019 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan ====================================================== Vishal Pandey @ Vishal Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Manoj Pandey, Resident of Village - Harnathpur, P.S.- Raghunathpur, Distt - Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Braj Nandan Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-09-2020 Since as of now the Courts have not resumed normal physical hearing, the matter has been listed today for consideration through video conferencing.

The learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual Court proceedings from their homes, all with the aid of audio visual technology. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No.79 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-VIII, Siwan.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7666 of 2020(4) dt.18-09-2020 2/2 The prosecution case is that the petitioner and one Manjay Pandey have assaulted the informant's son by means of spade.

Petitioner's counsel submits that specific assault has not been specifically attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the police had submitted final form, whereafter the court had taken cognizance on protest petition. Learned APP for the State referring to the case diary submits that two incised wounds have been found over right front temporal region of skull and another over right parietal region of skull and the Doctor has opined it to be grievous injuries, as has been recorded in paragraph 18 of the case diary. The witnesses have also corroborated the prosecution version in the investigation. Considering the direct allegation against the petitioners, he submits that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the rival submissions, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T