Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11689/2023bail rejected

Raman Kumar Sharma @ Raman Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-18Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11689 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2020 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

RAMAN KUMAR SHARMA @ RAMAN SHARMA Son of Late Ganga Pd. Sharma R/v- Bhagwatipur, P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani 2.

SUMAN KUMAR SHARMA @ SUMAN SHARMA Son of Late Ganga Pd. Sharma R/v- Bhagwatipur, P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani 3.

LALAN SHARMA Son of Late Ganga Pd. Sharma R/v- Bhagwatipur, P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani 4.

MANOJ KUMAR YADAV @ MANOJ YADAV Son of Chootu Yadav R/vBiroul, P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Soban Asghar , Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Prasad , Addl. Public Prosecutor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 308, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per F.I.R petitioner No 1 is said to have assaulted with Tengari on the head of son of the informant in which he sustained injury. It is further alleged that other petitioners also assaulted and abused the informant and his sons.

4. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11689 of 2023(4) dt.18-07-2023 2/2 have falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation of assault against these petitioners. Doctor has found simple injury.

5. However, on perusal of counter affidavit filed by the informant, it appears that these petitioners have suppressed the criminal antecedent of the petitioners in order to mislead the Court and obtain bail. Petitioner No. 1 has got five criminal antecedents. Petitioner No. 2 has got two criminal antecedents. Petitioner No. 3 has got two criminal antecedents. Petitioner No. 4 has got one criminal antecedent.

6. Considering the accusation and conduct and criminal antecedents of the petitioners, prayer for pre-arrest bail petition of the petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Kaushik/- U T