Ashok Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33137 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-255 Year-2020 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar ====================================================== ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA Son of Gulab Mishra Resident of Ward No. 02, Village- Narwara, Kishunpur @ Narwara, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Manoj Kumar Mishra S/o- Gulab Mishra Resident of Village- Narwara Kishunpur, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar. ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarojanand Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Tariyani P.S. Case No. 255 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354, 379, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant Manoj Kumar Mishra, made allegation against the petitioner and co-accused Ashish Raj @ Suraj that due to non-fulfillment of ransom of Rs. 50,000/- the petitioner inflicted rod blow upon him. Similarly, co-accused Ashish Raj also assaulted him with iron rod. The informant suffered fractured injuries on his hand

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33137 of 2021(4) dt.04-07-2022 2/2 and he was referred to SKMCH.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is own brother of the informant. The petitioner never demanded ransom.

The learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner that he along with co-accused Ashish Raj badly assaulted the informant who sustained grievous injuries. Nature of injuries has been given in the impugned order which shows that the informant has sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner is direct assailant, as such, he does not deserve the privilege for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T