Golu Kumar Thakur @ Karan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25118 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2018 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Golu Kumar Thakur @ Karan Kumar S/o Chandeshwar Thakur, R/o VillagePachhiyari Tol Tabhka Ward No. 2, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 26-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 270 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there is an allegation of giving a Farsha blow by this petitioner on the head of the informant but the injury is simple in nature. It is also submitted that there is a land dispute between the two parties which relate to some altercation and resulted in a case and counter case. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25118 of 2019(3) dt.26-07-2019 2/2 Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that in the case diary the injury report has come which shows that the allegations that this petitioner had given a Farsha blow on the head of the informant is correct. The injuries noticed by the doctor corroborates the allegation because there is a 5cmx1cm scalp deep injury. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations against the petitioner being that of giving a Farsha blow on the vital part of the body of the informant which caused injury may be simple in nature, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

In case the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, his prayer of regular bail shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by the order of this Court and the same will be considered on the parameters of the regular bail alone.

The applicant stands disposed off accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/ved U T