Uma Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 32431 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2019 Thana- CHANDRAMANDI District- Jamui ====================================================== UMA YADAV SON OF MAHABIR YADAV R/O- VILLAGEBASMANIYA, P.S.- CHANDRAMANDIH, DIST.- JAMUI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2022 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner, who is in custody since 08.02.2022, seeks regular bail in connection with Chandramandhi Town P.S. Case No. 132 of 2019, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 447, 307, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a written report of assault was made before the SHO concerned that all the coaccused persons named in the FIR started assaulting the informant. There is direct allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted on the head of the informant by tangi causing injury as mentioned in the injury report.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 32431 of 2022(2) dt.01-09-2022 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the informant is own agnate and there is land dispute between the parties. There is case and counter case and it was just out of spur of the moment due to sudden provocation by informant side without intention the petitioner has allegedly given tangi blow on the head. CT Scan of the injury reveals that the skull is normal. Petitioner had assaulted the informant intentionally to take his life. There is case and counter case of the same. Petitioner is in custody 08.02.2022. Taking into consideration that after rejection of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner vide order dated 29.02.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5231 of 2020, petitioner remained absconding and no plausible reason has been assigned to such delay in the bail application, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.

(Purnendu Singh, J) minu/- U