Anil Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11201 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2021 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Anil Sao Son Of Late Fulchand Saw Resident Of Village - Manpur Kumhar Toli, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Gaya.

2.

Niranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar Son Of Shiv Prasad Resident Of Village - Manpur Kumhar Toli, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Gaya. 3.

Mala Devi W/O Of Anil Sao Resident Of Village - Manpur Kumhar Toli, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ujjawal Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary Mr. Deepak Kumar Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Gupta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 308, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners are said to have assaulted the informant by means of brickbat and danda causing injury on the head, shoulder and hand of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11201 of 2022(2) dt.03-08-2022 2/3 implicated in this case. He submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. He submits that the injury found upon the victim is simple in nature. He submits that there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against the petitioners. He further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner no. 3.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, let the above named petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 249 of 2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, there is specific allegation against the petitioner no. 3, I am not inclined

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11201 of 2022(2) dt.03-08-2022 3/3 to enlarge the petitioner no. 3 on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with the aforesaid case.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T