Jatashankar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29824 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-645 Year-2023 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Jatashankar Jha Son Of Jibachh Jha Resident Of Village And P.O. -KAKRAUL, P.S. - Rahika, District -MADHUBANI, Bihar 2.

Gurudev Jha Son Of Jatashankar Jha Resident Of Village And P.O. -KAKRAUL, P.S. - Rahika, District -MADHUBANI, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Most. Sabita Devi Wife Of Late Pramod Jha @ Laddu Jha Resident Of Village And P.O. -KAKRAUL, P.S. - Rahika, District -MADHUBANI, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jagnnath Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Kalyan Shankar, APP For the Informant Mr. Birendra Kant Choudhary, Adv.

Mr. Krishna Kant Choudhary, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 448, 379, 354(B), 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Petitioners along with other accused persons are said to have assaulted the complainant. They also took out the golden ear ring worth Rs. 25,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioners have been made

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29824 of 2024(2) dt.10-07-2024 2/2 accused in this case only one Nagina Devi (wife of petitioner no. 1) had filed a complaint case bearing complaint case No. 609 of 2023 against the complainant. He submits that the present case is counter blast and afterthought as the wife of the petitioner no. 1 had filed a complaint case against the complainant. He further submits that petitioners have criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State and informant oppose the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Complaint Case No. 645 of 2023.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T