Rajeev Jha @ Rajiv Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17430 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-409 Year-2023 Thana- BISFI District- Madhubani ====================================================== RAJEEV JHA @ RAJIV KUMAR JHA S/O- RAM VILAS JHA R/OSINGHIYA MACHCHA TOLA, WARD NO.- 04, P.S.- BISFI, DIST.- MADHUBANI.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Abu Nasar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307,354,379, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the IPC in connection with Bisfi P.S. Case No.409 of 2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that petitioner came to her house looking for her husband and started abusing on the ground that why her husband is not deposing in favour of the petitioner in Bisfi P.S. Case No.297 of 2020, further some more accused came and on order of Surya Narayan Jha, the petitioner assaulted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17430 of 2024(3) dt.22-08-2024 2/2 informant twice by farsa causing injury on head and temporal region.
4. The learned counsel submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is also submitted that petitioner earlier had filed one criminal case against the husband of the informant and for the said region he has been implicated in the instant case.
5. The learned APP, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that from perusal of the injury report as has come in the case diary, it would manifest that the informant was assaulted on head and the injury has been opined to be dangerous to life.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T