Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19798/2020rejected

Aman Kumar @ Bharat v. The State Of Bihar

2020-07-08Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19798 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2019 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran ====================================================== AMAN KUMAR @ BHARAT Son of Raj Kumar Patwa @ Raj Kumar Prasad Resident of Village - Sonarpatti Sahebganj, P.S.- Chapra Town, Distt.- Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Parijat Saurav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 271 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 504, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68207 of 2019 on merits. Now again the prayer for bail has been renewed on the ground that the injury sustained by the victim does not corroborate with the allegation levelled against the petitioner, which is evident

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19798 of 2020(3) dt.08-07-2020 2/2 from Annexure-6. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 02.09.2019.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of assault by knife on the nose of the husband of the informant against the petitioner and there is injury also. Moreover, witnesses have supported the prosecution version. Charges have not been framed in this case. No fresh ground is made out to consider the prayer of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T