Ranjan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47565 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -158 Year- 2015 Thana -CHARPOKHARI District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Ranjan Yadav Son of Dinesh Yadav, Resident of Village - Siadih, Police Station - Charpokhari, District - Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 02-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 158 of 2015 dated 01.06.2015 instituted under Sections 147/341/323/324/307/379/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was altercation between two sides for which there is also a counter case earlier in time. It is submitted that the other side was the aggressor as it was wanting the petitioner side to compromise the earlier case being Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 31 of 2008 in which the informant and others are facing trial for murdering the grandson of main accused Bali Yadav. Learned counsel submits that the injury is simple in nature and the petitioner having clean antecedent is also a student. Learned A.P.P.

opposes the prayer for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47565 of 2015 (3) dt.02-11-2015 2/2 anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner has been accused of making blow near the eye with a spear and the same is corroborated by the injury report in which it has been opined that the wound near the eyes has been caused by sharp cutting weapon. Learned counsel further submits that the plea that there is also a counter case cannot help the petitioner as he has been accused of a specific overt act on the head with a sharp cutting weapon which has been corroborated by the injury report.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, in the event the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail before the Court below, the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T