Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45331/2017rejected

Raushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-09Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45331 of 2017 (3) dt.09-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45331 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -479 Year- 2017 Thana -HAJIPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Raushan Singh, Son of Sri Uday Singh @ Uday Pratap Singh, resident of Village Patwa Toli Chauhatta, P.S. Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A,P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Hajipur Town Police Station Case No. 479 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 448, 341, 323, 307, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, there is land dispute between the parties and on account of that this petitioner has been made accused in this case. The injury sustained by the informant is simple in nature, which is evident from annexure-3 and 3/A. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45331 of 2017 (3) dt.09-11-2017 Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner and submitted that there is direct allegation of assault by iron rod on the head of the informant against the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T