Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11579/2021dismissed

Dinesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2021-12-23Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11579 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2019 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== DINESH RAM S/o Late Chulhai Ram Resident of Village-Barauna, P.S.- Karja, District-Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-12-2021 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Karja P.S.Case No.64 of 2019. The allegation against five FIR named accused persons including the present petitioner is that they badly assaulted the informant and her husband with lathi, danda, stone etc. Her husband was firstly referred to S.K.M.C.H.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11579 of 2021(2) dt.23-12-2021 2/2 Muzaffarpur from where the doctor referred him to Patna and he breathed his last in Navjeevan Hospital, Patna. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the parties are agnates and there is land dispute. He has also submitted that co-accused Lalmuni Devi has been granted anticipatory bail, but the details whereof have not been made available.

The allegation against the accused persons including the petitioner is that they badly assaulted the informant and her husband, who sustained three injuries as per the post-mortem report available with the record.

In my opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T