Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34943/2017rejected

Shubham Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-30Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34943 of 2017 (4) dt.30-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34943 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -119 Year- 2017 Thana -AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAURANGABAD ====================================================== Shubham Kumar Son of Anil Singh @ Anil Kr. Singh, R/o Behind V Mart Ward no.5, P.S.- Aurangabad (Town), District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sakir Ahmad, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Aurangabad (Town) Police Station Case No. 119 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, and 506/34 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 was dispute between one Abhishek Kumar and accused Roushan Kumar and on account of that altercation took place between them. The petitioner only happens to be friend of co-accused Roushan Kumar, who is said to have inflicted iron rod blow on the head

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34943 of 2017 (4) dt.30-08-2017 of the informant, has been implicated in this case. This petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence nor he has assaulted the informant by any means. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of assault by means of hockey and stick against the petitioner causing injury to the informant. Prosecution witnesses have also supported the prosecution version.

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