Nawal Sah @ Nawal Kishore Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9476 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2020 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Nawal Sah @ Nawal Kishore Sah Son of Bhagelu Sah, R/v- Nayak Tola, P.S.- Sugauli, District- East Champaran 2.

Awadhesh Sah @ Awadhesh Kumar Son of Nawal Sah @ Nawal Kishore Sah, R/v- Nayak Tola, P.S.- Sugauli, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 03-05-2023 Let the defect, if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 216 of 2020 dated 12.04.2020 lodged under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. As per prosecution, the informant of the present case was standing in the morning in front of his house then in the meantime the accused persons with other have visited there and started assaulting the informant, in result the brother of the informant become injured brutally and subsequently he did in the hospital.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9476 of 2023(2) dt.03-05-2023 2/2 further submits that the petitioner no.1 is in custody since 17.05.2022 having one criminal antecedent and petitioner no.2 is in custody since 27.07.2022 having one criminal antecedent. Counsel for petitioners further submits that they are ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall imposed upon them by the court.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the content of the F.I.R., it transpires that there is involvement of the petitioners in this case. Upon specific query that whether charge has been framed or not, counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware that charge has been framed or not.

In this circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, therefore, bail petition of the petitioners is hereby rejected but petitioners shall be released on bail after framing of charge in this case.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ravishankar/- U T