Satya Narayan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27415 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2019 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Satya Narayan Singh, Son of Late Ramdeo Singh, Resident of Village - Kishanpur, P.S.- Bathnaha, Dist.- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No.262 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Sitamarhi.

It is alleged that the accused persons, including the petitioner, have assaulted the informant by various means. Against the petitioner, there is specific allegation of assault by iron rod.

Petitioner's counsel submits that the allegation pertains to 10.12.2019. F.I.R., however, has been lodged on 17.12.2019, for which there is no explanation for the delay. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27415 of 2020(3) dt.20-01-2021 2/2 further submitted that all the injuries, which have been found, were caused by sharp-cutting weapon.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for prearrest bail. It is submitted that from the injury report, it is clear that the informant has suffered injury on the right cheek, which corroborates the allegation. Further, delay has been explained in the FIR by referring to the fact that the informant was shuttled between Sitamarhi and Muzaffarpur before lodging of the FIR in connection with the treatment of the injuries sustained in the said occurrence.

Considering the rival submissions, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T