Radhe Chaupal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41637 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2020 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

RADHE CHAUPAL Son of Lochan Chaupal Resident of Village- Daibhat, P.S.- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga.

2.

MUKESH CHAUPAL Son of Lochan Chaupal Resident of Village- Daibhat, P.S.- Manigachhi, Dsitrict- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No.52 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 341, 323, 308, 379, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners are said to have assaulted the wife of the informant while she was going to attend the call of nature. When the informant and his brother went to save her, the petitioners assaulted the brother of the informant by means of knife and Sariya. It is also alleged that the accused persons torn the cloth of wife of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41637 of 2021(3) dt.05-07-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that the injuries sustained by the brother of the informant are grievous in nature.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, 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