← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6987/2020bail rejected

Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-07-06Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 6987 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-590 Year-2019 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== PRAVEEN KUMAR S/o Mahendra Rai R/o village- Kharaj Jitwarpur, P.S.- Samastipur Mufassil, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-07-2020 As of now, the Courts have not resumed normal physical hearing. The matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual Court proceedings with the aid of audio visual technology.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Samastipur Mufassil Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 590 of 2019 instituted for the offence punishable under Section (s) 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341, 379, 504, 506 of Indian

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6987 of 2020(6) dt.06-07-2020 2/2 Penal Code.

The accusation against the petitioner is of assault by means of Garasa on head of the informant.

Petitioner's counsel submits that there is case and counter case leading to petitioner's false implication. In the instant case, the injury has been found to be simple in nature. Learned APP, referring to paragraph 26 of case diary, which is the injury report of informant, submits that the doctor has noticed an incised head injury.

Considering the rival submissions, this Court does not consider it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T