Lal Babu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29149 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-365 Year-2020 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== LAL BABU SAH Son of Late Methur Sah Resident of Village - Janta Dih, P.S.- Gaighat, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of normal court proceedings. 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 Gaighat P.S. Case No.365 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is said to have assaulted the informant with Daab due to which the informant got cut injuries on head and hand.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29149 of 2021(2) dt.03-01-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. It is submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted the informant with Daab, but the injury report shows that the injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance. There is no cut injury. It is also submitted that the occurrence took place on 21.10.2020 and FIR was lodged on 25.10.2020 after delay of four days. Learned APP for the State submits that the injuries are grievous in nature.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Sanjay/- U T