Deo Kumar Bhadaiswar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9472 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2020 Thana- KHUTAUNA District- Madhubani ====================================================== DEO KUMAR BHADAISWAR S/o Bachay Bhadaiswar R/o village- Siswar, P.S.- Khutauna, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleges that accused persons, including the petitioner, intercepted the police force and assaulted them, it is next alleged that petitioner assaulted informant by brick causing injury on his ear and rescued Chandan whom police had arrested, it is further alleged that petitioner was identified by the local chowkidar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was on an inimical term

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9472 of 2022(2) dt.05-09-2022 2/2 with the local chowkidar, further the injury suffered by the informant is simple in nature.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that if anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is entertained, the same would lead to demoralizing the police force, it is next submitted that the police in order to nab criminal had gone to the place of occurrence and had arrested Chandan and the petitioner had the audacity to intercept the entire force and then to assault causing injury. Learned A.P.P. further submits that no doubt the injuries were simple but then definitely petitioner created obstruction in discharge of public duty and also helped an apprehended accused to flee from police custody.

Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is thus rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T