Shankar Prasad @ Shankar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34086 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2020 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

SHANKAR PRASAD @ SHANKAR PASWAN Son of Late Chaku Paswan Resident of village - Salha, Ward No. -04, P.S. - Desari (Sahdoi O.P.), District - Vaishali at Hajipur.

2.

Pawan Kumar Son of Sri Surendra Rai Resident of village - Salha, Ward No. -04, P.S. - Desari (Sahdoi O.P.), District - Vaishali at Hajipur. 3.

Aryan Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Son of Late Ram Babu Rai Resident of village - Salha, Ward No. -04, P.S. - Desari (Sahdoi O.P.), District - Vaishali at Hajipur.

4.

Amit Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Son of Sri Surendra Rai Resident of village - Salha, Ward No. -04, P.S. - Desari (Sahdoi O.P.), District - Vaishali at Hajipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Navjot Yeshu For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Naresh Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Desari (Sahdei O.P.) P.S. Case No. 302 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34086 of 2021(5) dt.02-03-2022 2/2 implicated in this case in retaliation of the earlier case filed by the wife of Lal Babu Rai. Moreover, the injuries sustained have been found to be simple in nature. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation of assault against these petitioners which is supported by the injuries. Petitioners, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T