Arvind Kumar Paswan @ Arvind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35052 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-255 Year-2023 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger ====================================================== 1.

Arvind Kumar Paswan @ Arvind Kumar son of Karu Paswan Resident of Matadih, P.S. Dharhara, District Munger 2.

Uchit Paswan son of Hudo Paswan resident of Matadih, P.S. Dharhara, District Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 03-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking prearrest bail in connection with Dharhara P.S. Case No.255 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 has got four criminal antecedents whereas petitioner no.2 has got two criminal antecedents as per statements made in paragraph '3' of the application.

3. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 had assaulted the informant by a sword causing injury on his left palm and the petitioner no.2 assaulted the informant with iron rod on his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35052 of 2024(2) dt.03-06-2024 2/2 head.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. Learned counsel submits that there is no specific allegation of assault against these petitioners.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6. Having regard to the materials available on the record showing that the petitioner no.1 had assaulted the informant by a sword causing injury on his left palm and the petitioner no.2 assaulted the informant with iron rod on his head and the head injury has been found grievous in nature and further that the petitioner no.1 has got five criminal antecedents and the petitioner no.2 has got two criminal antecedents which they had not even disclosed before the learned court below, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Prayer is refused.

7. This application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T