Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41869 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2021 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL KUMAR SAH Son of Late Upendra Sah Resident of Village- Naya BVhargama, P.S.-Bhargama, Distt.- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-07-2022 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Bhaskar Shankar for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No.38 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner and other co-accused persons are said to have assaulted the informant and his nephew. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is case and counter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41869 of 2021(3) dt.05-07-2022 2/2 case between the parties. It is submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application.

Learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner and the injuries sustained by the nephew of the informant are grievous in nature. Taking into consideration the fact that the injuries sustained by the nephew of the informant are grievous in nature, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

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