Ram Sewak Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24856 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2019 Thana- MEDNI CHAUKI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
RAM SEWAK PASWAN Son of - Late Brahmdeo Paswan Resident of Village - Amarpur, P.S. - Medni-Chauki, District - Lakhisarai. 2.
Bhola Paswan Son of - Ram Sewak Paswan Resident of Village - Amarpur, P.S. - Medni-Chauki, District - Lakhisarai.
3.
Shyam Sundar Paswan Son of Ram sewak Paswan Resident of Village - Amarpur, P.S. - Medni-Chauki, District - Lakhisarai. 4.
Mangal Paswan Son of - Dhaneshwar Paswan Resident of Village - Barahiya, P.S. - Barahiya, District - Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.
Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Medni Chauki P.S. Case No. 39 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under section 448, 341, 323, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous land dispute.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24856 of 2021(8) dt.18-04-2022 2/2 Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners are named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation of assault against them which is supported by the injury report. Petitioners, therefore, do not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T