Jitendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30165 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2021 Thana- MUSAHARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

JITENDRA KUMAR S/o Suresh Thakur R/o village- Binda, P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur.

2.

CHINTU KUMAR S/o Suresh Thakur R/o village- Binda, P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shubhesh Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mushahari P.S. Case No.100 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 452, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners and other co-accused persons are said to have assaulted the son of the informant resulting into his death.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30165 of 2022(4) dt.13-12-2022 2/2 stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that petitioners and informant are neighbour and due to previous land dispute and local village politics, the entire family members of the petitioners have been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is case and counter case between the parties and on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioners were not present in their house. It is also submitted that the cause of death of the deceased was due to septic-semic shock.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners by submitting that the postmortem report supports the prosecution case. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Sanjay/- U T