Mukesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20468 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-494 Year-2021 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan ====================================================== MUKESH YADAV S/o Rajan Yadav @ Rajan Chaudhari @ Rajan Chaudhary Resident of Village- Ramdev Nagar, P.S.- Muffasil (Mahadeva O.P.), Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Masoom Alam, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is of assaulting the informant with sharp cut weapon on his head.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20468 of 2022(3) dt.12-09-2022 2/2 No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent, which is mentioned in para-3 of this application. It is submitted that for the alleged occurrence, there is a case and counter-case between the parties. Both sides have sustained injuries in the said occurrence. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that there is specific allegation against the petitioner to assault the informant due to which he sustained grievous injury.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the informant has sustained grievous injury, 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