Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27852/2021bail rejected

Ajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-06-16Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27852 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-422 Year-2020 Thana- KHAIRA District- Jamui ====================================================== AJEET KUMAR son of Payare Sah Resident of village- Teliyadih, P.SKhaira, Dist- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukul Jee For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) 16-06-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant has alleged that on 31.8.2020 at about 4 p.m., while his son, Varun Kumar, was coming after taking grass from his field, accused persons including the petitioner restrained him and started abusing and assaulting him and when son of the informant protested, all the accused persons started assaulting him by means of lathi, danda and in the meantime, Ajeet Kumar (petitioner) gave knife blow over his back and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27852 of 2021(2) dt.16-06-2021 2/2 hand and when informant tried to save his son, he was also stabbed in the stomach and accused Sonu Kumar snatched Hanumani made of gold from neck of his son.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that matter has been compromised between the parties and on this account, co-accused, Sonu Kumar, Peyare Sah and Champa Devi were granted anticipatory bail by the court below itself, as contained in Annexure 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(S. Kumar, J) Sanjay/- U T