← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16340/2020rejected

Ram Nandan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-31Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16340 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2019 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== RAM NANDAN YADAV Son of Late Mahavir Yadav Resident of Village - Ramsalla, P.S.- Sadar, District - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 290 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. .

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is previous dispute between the parties with regard to road. The injuries sustained have not been found to be grievous in nature. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16340 of 2020(5) dt.31-01-2022 2/2 the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is specific allegation against him of assault by means of farsa on the head of the informant which is supported by the injuries sustained by the informant. Petitioner, therefore, does 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 petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T