Ram Parvesh Das And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47092 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -70 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHNAR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Ram Parvesh Das, Son of Gulab Chandra Das,

2. Parmodh Das @ Parmod Das, Son of Gulab Chandra Das, Both are resident of Village- Mahindara, P.S.- Mahnar, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Renuka Ratnakar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-12-2016 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mahnar P.S. Case No. 70 of 2016, registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 325, 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the A.C.J.M-VI, Vaishali at Hajipur.

The accusation is that nine persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners, reached at the husband of the informant and started to abuse to him due to not withdrawing the case filed in respect to the land. Thereafter, all the accused persons started assaulting the husband of the informant through lathi, rod, fists and slaps in which the husband of the informant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47092 of 2016 (2) dt.14-12-2016 2/2 sustained grievous injury. Thereafter, her husband was rushed to the primary health centre, Jandaha from where he was referred to P.M.C.H., Patna, but he died in the way.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due the land dispute occurrence took place and petitioner side also sustained injury regarding which Mahnar P.S. Case No. 79 of 2016 was also instituted, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504 against seven named in the F.I.R. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks 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) manish/- U T