Md. Minto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29544 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2021 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Md. Minto, Son Of Nijam R/O Village - Mian Road Near School Ward No. 12 Katahara, Police Station- Supaul, District - Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354(A), 379, 504, 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that she had gone to fetch water, the petitioner misbehaved and touched her inappropriately then. Further, in the meantime, main accused persons came and assaulted her. Further, petitioner assaulted her by dabiya causing injury on head and her daughter was also assaulted by accused persons by an iron rod causing rupture wound on left hand and when they became unconscious, accused looted ornaments and cash worth Rs.48,000/-.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29544 of 2022(2) dt.16-11-2022 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that from the side of the petitioner, Chhatarpur P. S. Case No.109 of 2021 has been instituted against the informant and his side. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on a trivial issue.

The learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the anticipatory bail application. The learned counsel for the informant submits that petitioner assaulted the informant with dabiya on head causing injury which was found grievous that amply demonstrates the intention of the petitioner in committing the crime.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T