Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31807 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2014 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna ====================================================== DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPAK KUMAR VERMA S/O SRI MAHADEV SINGH R/O VILLAGE-NEW TARACHAK NEAR BUDHWA SCHOOL, P.S-DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Narain Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 324, 307, 285, 504, and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Bihta P.S.Case No. 319 of 2014.

As per allegation, the son of the informant developed relation with co-accused Puja Devi. Puja Devi insisted for her marriage with the son of the informant. The informant fixed the marriage of his son in Dinara Rohtas and the marriage was to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31807 of 2021(4) dt.21-07-2022 2/2 be solemnized on 18th May, 2014. Meanwhile, Puja Devi along with the petitioner threw acid on the person of the informant's son Rohit Kumar and made him badly injured.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He is not relative of Puja Devi, but he is the resident of some other place. He is a person of clean antecedents. There is specific allegation that the petitioner threw acid on the person of Rohit Kumar. The injury report is available with the case diary which shows that Rohit Kumar has suffered grievous injury.

In view of the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. His prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T