Nikhil Kumar Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21318 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-522 Year-2021 Thana- BASANTPUR District- Siwan ====================================================== NIKHIL KUMAR CHAUHAN S/o Ramashewar Prasad Resident of Village - Molnapur, P.S. - Basantpur, District - Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that petitioner gave repeated knife blow injuring his son's head and back and also stabbed Karan while fleeing on account of previous enmity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that the injury is of a private hospital, as such the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21318 of 2022(2) dt.02-11-2022 2/2 same does not inspire confidence, it is next submitted that the doubt is created for the reason that initially the injured were treated at the P.H.C., but then there is no report of the P.H.C. certifying the injury, it is further submitted that it appears that the injuries were manipulated in a private hospital. It is also submitted that the present FIR is nothing but a counter-blast to Basantpur P.S. Case No. 525 of 2021.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is a direct allegation against this petitioner of inflicting repeated knife blow causing injury on the vital part of the son of the informant i.e., head apart from back.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Shivam/- U T