Shambhu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17028 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2021 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SHAMBHU SAH S/O PANNA LAL SAH R/o village- Pratap Patti, Ward No. 10, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sahebganj P.S. Case No.217 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. To settle the land dispute, when the son of the informant went to the house of the petitioner, the petitioner along with his son is said to have started hitting upon

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17028 of 2022(2) dt.17-08-2022 2/2 informant's son with sharp edged knife and sustaining grievous injury he died.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. Both the parties are own agnates. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T