Sintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3975 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -159 Year- 2016 Thana -KAKO District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Sintu Kumar, Son of Satyendra Yadav, Resident of Village- Ramdani, P.S. - Kako, District- Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-03-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kako P.S. Case No. 159 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 379 and 504/34 of the I.P.C.

Allegedly, the petitioner assaulted the informant with iron rod on his head resulting he became unconscious and fell down and thereafter Siyamani Devi, the wife of the informant, was also assaulted by iron rod by the petitioner on her head and the petitioner snatched gold chain from the neck of wife of the informant.

Submission is of false implication and that opinion of the injury was kept reserved but thereafter no report has been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3975 of 2017 (3) dt.21-03-2017 2/2 obtained from P.M.C.H, the injury received appears not grievous and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration as there is case and counter case and both sides have received injuries.

The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering that on the head of the informant 11⁄2 inch, 1⁄2 inch and scalp deep injury has been found which is on the vital part and further on the head of wife of the informant also injury has been found and for that the petitioner is responsible and as such I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of Sri Rajesh Kumar Rajak, A.C.J.M.- Cum- Sub. Judge-Vth, Jehanabad. However, in case and if so advised, the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail then his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits, preferably on the same day, without being prejudiced by this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T