Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24580 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2022 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ====================================================== SANJEEV KUMAR S/o- PRASADI YADAV Village- Sundarbad PsSikandara Dist- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 19-05-2023

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

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sikandara P.S. Case no. 249 of 2022 registered under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 354(a)(B), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

3. As per the prosecution case, the sixteen named accused persons including the petitioner herein are said to have come variously armed and of having assaulted the informant and others. The petitioner and one Sunil Kumar are said to have struck Sintu Yadav with a tangi, seriously injuring him.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Injury reports were not produced by the Investigating Officer, which would be evident from the order of the learned trial court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24580 of 2023(2) dt.19-05-2023 2/2 Further against the allegation of assault by two persons ie the petitioner and one Sunil Kumar, allegedly only one injury has been found on Sintu Yadav. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody for about eight months and charge sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant referring to the order of the learned trial court submits that the injury report of Sintu Yadav shows that he sustained serious injuries on his scalp which substantiate the allegation in the FIR as against this petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, the contents of injury report of Sintu Yadav which finds mention in the order of the learned trial court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U