Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45126/2017rejected

Aman Kumar @ Bablu v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-04Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45126 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2017 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Aman Kumar @ Bablu, son of Late Kapileshwar Sah, resident of VillageSatghatta, P.S.- Alauli, District- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI S.M. RAHMAN ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-12-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Alauli P.S. Case No. 186 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to local party politics. Learned counsel further submits that as a matter of fact informant had gone to the house of this petitioner and started abusing him and tried to assault this petitioner. In self defence, this petitioner pushed him away and in the scuffle informant lost his balance and fell down from the stairs. Petitioner had no intention to cause injury to the informant. Petitioner is a private teacher having no criminal antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45126 of 2017(5) dt.04-12-2017 2/2 prayer for bail and submits that there is specific allegation of assault against this petitioner which is supported by the injuries sustained by the informant. During investigation, witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

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 petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T