Lalan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35152 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2020 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Saharsa ====================================================== LALAN YADAV S/o Late Badari Yadav R/o village- Shahpur (Ramji Tola), P.S.- Nauhatta, District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anant Kumar-1 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual Court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 168 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 188, 324, 325, 307, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Saharsa.

The accusation against this petitioner is that he assaulted the husband of the informant by means of Dabia on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35152 of 2021(2) dt.03-02-2022 2/2 his head and he sustained grievous injury.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. The petitioner has six criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the husband of the informant. He further submitted that from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is ample evidence against the petitioner and considering his criminal antecedents, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and particularly considering the criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T