Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11465/2017rejected

Gopal Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-23Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11465 of 2017 (4) dt.23-06-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11465 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -76 Year- 2015 Thana -TARAPUR District- MUNGER ======================================================

1. Gopal Paswan Son of Late Shyam Sunder Paswan, Resident of VillageTeghara, P.O.-Lakhanpur, P.S.-Tarapur, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Kashyap, Adv. : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akbar Ali, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Tarapur Police Station Case No. 76 of 2015, disclosing offences under Sections 144, 341, 337, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, there is land dispute between the parties for making temple on path and on account of that occurrence took place. Moreover, the injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature and caused by a hard and blunt substance. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11465 of 2017 (4) dt.23-06-2017 anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of assault by Khanti against the petitioner, resultantly, upper portion of eye of the informant got ruptured.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Brajesh/- U T