Vipin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20945 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-431 Year-2019 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ====================================================== Vipin Kumar S/o Late Bhola Prasad R/o village- Medhkuri, P.S.- Meskaur, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 12-11-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conference.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sirdala P.S. Case No. 431 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 308, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Office has pointed out that name of court where the present case is pending given in prayer portion of the petition does not tally with first paragraph of impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed in ABP No. 1670 of 2019.

Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Nawada committed error on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20945 of 2020(2) dt.12-11-2020 2/2 record while passing the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 and as a matter of fact, Sirdala P.S. Case No. 431 of 2019 is pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateVI, Nawada. In view of the aforesaid submission, defect, as pointed out by the office, be ignored.

Petitioner is said to have given iron rod blow causing head injury to injured. The impugned order goes to show that injured sustained grievous injury as fracture of temporal bone was found on the person of the injured.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner and, accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, this order shall not cause any prejudice to concerned court at the time of consideration of regular bail application of the petitioner.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) shahzad/- U T