Jyotish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32824 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2020 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Jyotish Kumar (Male) aged about 20 years, Son of Rajesh Mahto @ Rajesh Mahato, Resident of Village - Brahmpura Nunfar Jagran Chowk, P.S.- Brahmpura, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-03-2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Brahmpura PS Case No. 77 of 2020 dated 16.03.2020, instituted under Sections 323/504/506/341/379/307 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner and another person is of intercepting the informant and specifically against the petitioner that he had assaulted the informant with iron rod on the head and face and also snatched Rs. 2,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32824 of 2020 dt.09-03-2021 2/2 is a painter and on the date of occurrence he was in his house and has been falsely implicated. It was further submitted that the informant himself is a quarrelsome person and is a habitual taker of drugs. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that there is injury found on the head of the informant as there was stitching wound, which clearly indicates that it was on the vital part and serious in nature.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T