Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33494/2021bail rejected

Kanhaiya Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2022-04-01Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33494 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2020 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== KANHAIYA RAM S/o- NAND KISHORE RAM Resident of VillageDhanauti, P.S.- Kataya, District- Gopalgunj. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nityanand Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 241 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, four FIR named accused persons including the present petitioner assaulted the informant. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that there was previous land dispute between both the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR itself shows that there is a previous enmity between both the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33494 of 2021(2) dt.01-04-2022 2/2 parties.

The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted farsa blow on Harendra Ram due to which his ear was slit and he also assaulted on the head of the informant with farsa. The injury report has been discussed in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge- VIIIth, Gopalganj, in his order dated 19.02.2021, he has mentioned that the, injured, Harendra Ram, received two sharp cut injuries both are opined as grievous. These injuries are attributed against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for privileges of bail.

Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T