Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17109/2017dismissed

Kamlesh Pathak v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-04-10Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17109 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2016 Thana -KARAHGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Kamlesh Pathak, Son of Ramsumer Pathak, Resident of Village- Baheri, P.S. Kargahar Sivhi, District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Jitendra Singh

3. Ramashankar Singh

4. Sahaya Singh @ Ram Sahaya Singh

5. Suraj Dev Singh All 2 to 5 are S/o Late Pahalad Singh

6. Kunj Bihari Singh, S/o Ram Sahay Singh

7. Manoj Singh, Son of Ram Ayodhya Singh

8. Badal Singh

9. Bipin Singh Both 8 to 9 are Sons of Surajdeo Singh All 1 to 9 are Resident of Village- Baheri, P.S.- Kargahar Sidhi, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri S.M. Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-04-2017 The Opposite parties No. 2 to 9 have been allowed anticipatory bail by the Court of learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, Sasaram in connection with Karagahar ( Sirhi) P. S. Case No. 101 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 379, 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the assault made by the Opposite parties was grievous in nature and the allegations constitute offence under

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the Court below ought not to have granted anticipatory bail.

3. I have perused the First Information Report and the order granted the Opposite parties the privilege of anticipatory bail.

4. I do not find any specific material to show that there has been any misuse of privilege of bail granted to the Opposite parties.

5. Considering the nature of accusation, which has been made in the First Information Report, I am of the considered view that discretion exercised by the Court below allowing the Opposite parties privilege of anticipatory bail cannot be said to be erroneous.

6. There is no merit in this application.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U