Dharmendra Kumar Sah @ Dharmendra Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11318 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2020 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan ====================================================== DHARMENDRA KUMAR SAH @ DHARMENDRA SAH Son of Atawaru Sah Resident of Village - Santhi, P.s.- Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhavesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Asha Devi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. VIII, Siwan. Petitioner along with other co-accused persons is said to have abused and attacked upon the family members of the informant by means of Lathi and Danda. Petitioner is stated to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11318 of 2022(4) dt.18-10-2022 2/2 have assaulted the son of the informant by means of sharp edged iron weapon which caused head injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is case and counter case between the parties and both sides have substance injuries. He submits that that only on suspicion petitioner is made accused in the present case. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Per contra, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the bail petition submitted that Section 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined the enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No.196 of 2020. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T