Rajlal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35776 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2021 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rajlal Yadav, Son Of Late Sampatti Lal Yadav @ Late Sapati Yadav, R/OVill- Harbhanga, P.S.- Laukahi, Dist.-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 16-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State through virtual mode in view of COVID-19.

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The case is registered under Sections 452, 341, 342, 323, 354(B), 307, 325, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No.228 of 2021 (G.R. No.1623/2021).

As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that in absence of her husband, one Narendra Yadav entered her home and tried to outrage her modesty. In the meanwhile, her husband came but was assaulted on his head by Raj Lal Yadav (petitioner herein) causing head injury as also that his wrist was fractured. The further allegation is of relieving

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35776 of 2022(2) dt.16-09-2022 2/2 her of her 'Mangalsutra'.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and the informant are related to each other inasmuch as the informant's husband and petitioner are own brother and the dispute has arisen due to land dispute for which his side has also preferred FIR vide Laukahi P.S. Case No.229 of 2021.

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that there is specific allegation against this petitioner of causing head injury to the informant's husband as also fracturing his hand and considering the aforesaid fact he does not deserve bail.

Taking into account the specific allegation that has been alleged by the informant against the petitioner herein, this Court for the present is not inclined to grant any relief in the backdrop of the fact that he do have number of criminal cases registered against him.

The bail application is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T