Lakhan Kumar @ Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42655 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -13 Year- 2015 Thana -BIDUPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Lakhan Kumar @ Amit Kumar, Son of Kedar Sharma, Resident of Village - Bidupur Dih, P.S. -Bidupur, District - Vaishali. .... .... 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 RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------ 12-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No.13 of 2015 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 308, 379 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hazipur.

The accusation is that nine persons, named in the F.I.R, including the petitioner variously armed entered into the house of the informant, Rajgir Sharma, where this petitioner gave a farsa blow causing injury on the forehead of the informant. Thereafter, the informant was assaulted by all the accused persons through

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42655 of 2015 (2) dt.12-10-2015 2/2 lathi and farsa. When the wife of the informant and two others rushed to save the informant, they were also assaulted by all the accused persons including the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on medical examination of the informant while seven injuries were found on his person, only injury no.1, which is incised wound, is found on the forehead of the informant and regarding the nature of the injury no.7, the opinion has been reserved by the doctor whereas rest injuries are simple in nature. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within six weeks from today and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T