Kailash Mandal And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25384 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2017 Thana -SAHKUND District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Kailash Mandal, Son of Late Masudhan Mandal.

2. Bablu Mandal, Son of Late Chhedi Mandal, Both resident of VillagePairdomania Mal, P.S.- Sahkund, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasiya, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners are seeking regular bail in Sahkund P.S. Case No. 11/2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is that of committing assault with Chhura causing injury to the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners surrendered on 21.03.2017 and there are no cogent materials to implicate the petitioners.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail and pointed out the observations made by the learned 1st Additional

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25384 of 2017 (2) dt.06-06-2017 2/2 Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Bail Petition No. 604/17. He would also submit that in the present case investigation is still going on and there is already an observation of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge directing that the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.

In view of the facts stated here-in-above that the investigation is still going on and the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order has observed that the prayer for bail may be renewed after framing of charge, I do not find it a fit case to grant regular bail to the petitioners at this stage as the materials available on record, particularly, the injury reports, does not support the petitioners in making out a case for bail at this stage. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is, therefore, rejected at this stage.

They may, however, renew their prayer for bail as per the impugned order, if so advised.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR U T