Ranjeet Prasad @ Ranjeet Kumar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7060 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2018 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj ====================================================== RANJEET PRASAD @ RANJEET KUMAR PRASAD Son of Krishna Prasad Resident of Village - Kahla Hajari Tola, P.S.- Barauli, Distt - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Naresh Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-06-2020 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 Counsel for the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in Barauli PS Case No. 193 of 2018 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 504/34 of the IPC.

While the petitioner and others were putting up a hut over informant's land, the informant objected to the same. It is under these circumstances that the accused persons, including the petitioner, have indulged in assault by various means. Against the petitioner there is an allegation that he has thrown acid upon the nephew (Prabhu Prasad) of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7060 of 2020(3) dt.25-06-2020 2/2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a long standing subsisting land dispute between the parties. The prosecution party is the aggressor. Earlier also 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was instituted in respect of the land. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Referring to the order of Additional Sessions Judge, he submits that the injury report shown sharp cutting injury with acid burn. Opinion of the doctor is that the injury is grievous. Considering the rival submissions this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U T