Ambikanand Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34697 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2020 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura ====================================================== AMBIKANAND RAM Son of Madan Ram Resident of Village - Rauta, P.S.- Puraini, District - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 307, 354B and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner was having an affair with his daughter-in-law and on objection by the petitioner, the petitioner and one another assaulted the informant on head causing serious injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations levelled in the FIR are all false and concocted. There is case and counter case between the parties and both sides having sustained injuries. The petitioner is in custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34697 of 2021(3) dt.21-01-2022 2/2 29.1.2021 and has no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case. The petitioner is an assistant teacher in a government school and there is no chance of his absconding.

Heard learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations levelled in the FIR together with the contents of the injury report wherein the injuries of the petitioner have been found to be grievous, the Court is not inclined to enlarged the petitioner on bail. The application is rejected.

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

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U