Bhola Kumar @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10583 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-286 Year-2019 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

BHOLA KUMAR @ CHHOTU Son of Shivji Sah Resident of Village - Kashipur Hanuman Mandir, P.S.- Samastipur, Distt - Samastipur. 2.

Suraj Kumar Son of Shivji Sah Resident of Village - Kashipur Hanuman Mandir, P.S.- Samastipur, Distt - Samastipur. 3.

Karan Kumar Son of Shivji Sah Resident of Village - Kashipur Hanuman Mandir, P.S.- Samastipur, Distt - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sabal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, through Video Conferencing.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Town Police Station Case No. 286 of 2019, disclosing offences under Sections 323/324/341/307/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, along with other co-accused persons, assaulted the son of the informant by means of dagger, causing him grievous injury.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10583 of 2020(3) dt.25-06-2020 2/2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and both the parties are of same locality. He further submits that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent and have been implicated in this case due to oblique motive. He also submits that no specific allegation have been levelled against the petitioners.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submit that the petitioners, along with others, with common intention, assaulted the son of the informant by means of knife, due to which he has sustained grievous injury, and as such, the petitioners do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that the son of the informant has received grievous injury, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail o the petitioners. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √