← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./192/2017rejected

Vijay Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-13Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.192 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -14 Year- 2016 Thana -NATIONAL HIGHWAY DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Vijay Kumar son of Late Mahabir Sah

2. Kishan Kumar son of Sri Umesh Sah Both residents of village - Murgiyachak, P.S. N.H. Bangra, District - Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 14 of 2016 registered under Sections- 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners and others, who came to take possession of the land of the informant, are alleged to have assaulted the informant, her husband and other family members brutally by Garasa, iron rod and Hockey stick. Gotni, Raj Kuamri Devi, and husband, Ram Prasad Sah, lost their consciousness and later on during course of treatment her

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.192 of 2017 (3) dt.13-02-2017 2/2 husband died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation against these petitioners. Petitioners are students. There is case and counter case between the parties.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is specific allegation that they assaulted the husband of the informant and other family members brutally.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled in the first information report and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T