Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8126/2022bail rejected

Hargun Das v. The State Of Bihar

2022-05-17Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8126 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2021 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran ====================================================== Hargun Das Son Of Late Yamuna Das R/O Village- Singhachhapar, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 45 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, on 12.01.2021 in the night informant along with other police officials and armed force reached at the house of petitioner for conducting raid in connection with Bagaha PS Case No. 122 of 2019 and 10 of 2021 but in the meantime, petitioner gave knife blow in the abdomen of constable Pankaj Kumar, inflicted knife blow in thigh of informant and in the abdomen of one Lalbabu Kumar. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8126 of 2022(3) dt.17-05-2022 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner happens to be father of accused in the aforesaid case during course of raid there was scuffle between the police party and this petitioner. During scuffle some of the police officials got injured. Petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2021 Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T