Md. Jamshed @Jamshed @ Sikandar @ Sikender v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32467 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2018 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== Md. Jamshed @Jamshed @ Sikandar @ Sikender, Son Of Md. Jabbar, Resident Of Village- Paikpar, Ward No. 05, Ps- Bhargama, Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The informant is represented by Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate.
2. The application for grant of bail to the petitioner who is in custody in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 103 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354B, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Based upon the written report the prosecution alleges that while the informant alongwith her husband was in the field, in the mean time all the FIR named accused persons including the petitioner came there and started assaulting them. It is specifically alleged this petitioner assaulted the husband of the informant by means of dabiya causing injury over his head.
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32467 of 2024(3) dt.31-07-2024 2/3 petitioner contended that the FIR clearly narrates that the petitioner has assaulted the husband of the informant by means of dabiya over his head, however, the injury sustained over the head of the injured is found to be simple in nature. It is further contended that both the parties are neighbor and on account of a land dispute they entered into a scuffle resulting into injury to the informant and her husband. It is also contended that now the petitioner is in custody since 23.01.2024 and the chargesheet has been submitted.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State as well as the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and have drawn the attention of this Court to the injury report. Referring to the injury report it is submitted that the husband of the informant received eighteen injuries over the bodies, there are altogether five grievous injuries sustained by the injured. It is further contended that it is very difficult for the informant in a situation where her husband was brutally assaulted by various persons, to disclose the specific nature of injury caused by which weapon or by whom.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of injuries which is attributed against all the accused persons including the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32467 of 2024(3) dt.31-07-2024 3/3 petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present.
7. The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge.
(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U T