Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29596/2019rejected

Raju Kumar @ Raju Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-24Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29596 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2015 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAJU KUMAR @ RAJU PRASAD Son of Kailash Bhagat Resident of Village - Dulama Bara Pakar, P.S.- Madhuban, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Madhuban P.S. case No. 10 of 2015 registered under Section 307, 326 and some other Sections of the IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer of petitioner for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected vide order dated 09.07.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23519 of 2015 on the ground that it was the petitioner who gave a blow with Farsa aiming on the head of informant but the informant warded off the blow on his hand. The petitioner gave second blow on the neck of the informant and one of the injuries on finger was opined to be grievous in nature but now the case has been compromised and the petitioner again moved for grant of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29596 of 2019(3) dt.24-07-2019 2/2 It is one of the cases in which the petitioner appears to have grossly misused the process of law. The prayer of petitioner was rejected on 09.07.2015 thereafter the petitioner made all efforts to gain over the witnesses and ultimately compromise petition was filed on 22.09.2017. The petitioner again moved for grant of anticipatory bail after four years from the date of rejection of his prayer for anticipatory bail. It was the petitioner who caused grievous injury to the informant by giving repeated blow.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the same is once again rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T