Arjun Sao @ Arjun v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51511 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2016 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Arjun Sao @ Arjun, Son of Bishwanath Sao, resident of Village- Tejpura, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad. At present resident of Khaini Dukan, Barun, P.S.- Barun, District- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. SIR PRAMOD KUMAR PANDEY ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sasaram Town (Tilouthu) P. S. Case No. 469 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the wife of the informant told him to visit Gupta Dham and with her co-accused Baijnath and petitioner were also there and in the way to Gupta Dham all the three including the petitioner caught the informant, tide his hands, legs and assaulted him, pressed his mouth and the petitioner and Baijnath cut the neck with sharp cutting weapon, resulting the informant became senseless and then the three accused fled away. After some times the informant regained his sense and then he went to the near village and villagers informed Tilouthu Police and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51511 of 2017(3) dt.15-12-2017 2/2 then he was brought to primary health center Tilouthu and from where he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Sasaram. Submission is of false implication and that the informant due to family dispute has lodged this case against his wife, the petitioner and co-accused. In the case diary there is no injury report as the injury report was not prepared by the doctor which is evident from paragraphs 19 and 37 of the case diary and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned APP opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the specific allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to him, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, the petitioner, if so advised, surrenders and seeks regular bail before the learned court below, then his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order considering that co-accused Rajanti Devi has already been allowed bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T