Md. Usman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20076 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-494 Year-2020 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== MD. USMAN Son of Late Md. Amrul Resident of Village - Bhirkhi, Ward No.- 24, P.S.- Madhepura, District - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 307, 379, 427, 354 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
The informant alleges that there was an altercation between the husband of the informant and petitioner regarding flowing of drain water and that petitioner started assaulting the husband of the informant by means of an iron rod and other accused persons also assaulted him and his family members by means of an iron rod.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20076 of 2022(2) dt.01-11-2022 2/2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place on account of a trivial dispute relating to drainage. It is next submitted that even the allegation of assault is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that there is no injury report in the case diary and, as such, even in the impugned order it has not been recorded. It is further submitted that had there been injury report, the same would have been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Madhepura.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 494 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T