Santosh Kumar Sharma @ Santosh Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27604 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2022 Thana- JALALPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Sharma @ Santosh Sharma Son Of Ram Darshan Sharma R/O Village- Rampur Noor Nagar, Kanhi, P.S.- Jalalpur, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Harsh Anuj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that petitioner and Mahendra Sah assaulted Yakub Miyan with an iron rod causing fracture of his right hand and injury on his head, it is further alleged that other accused also pelted stones and assaulted the informant with lathi causing injury on his shoulder and thigh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27604 of 2023(2) dt.24-07-2023 2/2 account of dispute relating to land with the informant, it is further submitted that though it is alleged that petitioner and Mahendra assaulted Yakub Miyan leading to grievous injury of fracturing his hand but then it is not clear that who assaulted him on hand.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against this petitioner and Mahendra that they assaulted Yakub Miyan causing injury on hand and head and the injury on hand was found to be grievous, it is next submitted that either Mahendra or petitioner assaulted and if petitioner is granted the privilege of anticipatory bail then the presumption would be that it was Mahendra who assaulted as such, for the present, the benefit of anticipatory bail be not given to the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is thus rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T