Manish Singh @Manish Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17838 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2023 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Manish Singh @Manish Kumar Singh SON OF Maheshwar Singh RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SIRAIYA (SARAIYA ), PS- DANDARI, DISTTBEGUSARAI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shubhesh Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that the informant has a pet dog which at times bites and the same was objected by the petitioner when it is alleged that an altercation took place and the petitioner tried to overrun the dog and even assaulted the father of the informant by an iron rod causing injury on head. The learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17838 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/2 petitioner submits that since the petitioner had objected the conduct of the informant in leaving the dog open, as such, it was the informant's side who were the aggressors and the petitioner in his defence assaulted.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the injuries suffered by the injured is grievous in nature and is on vital part of the body and it is not the case of the petitioner that the dog had bitten him.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T