Chinak Sahani@ Ranjit Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14566 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-397 Year-2021 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== CHINAK SAHANI@ RANJIT SAHANI Son of Deeplal Sahani Resident of Village - Salempur, P.S.- Lalganj, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyameshwar Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rina Sinha, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Manish Chandra Gandhi, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within stipulated period, office will place the matter before the Bench. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. Allegation against the petitioner is that he and one other accused have assaulted the father of informant by means of lathi and danda, where after, his father succumbed to the injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14566 of 2022(2) dt.10-08-2022 2/2 petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and village politics. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and only on suspicion, the petitioner has been made accused in this case. Petitioner has two criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is a direct allegation against the petitioner and co-accused to have assaulted the deceased.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T