Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32947/2020dismissed

Mithilesh Sao @ Mithilesh Saw @ Mithilesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-02-20Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32947 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2019 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== MITHILESH SAO @ MITHILESH SAW @ MITHILESH KUMAR S/o Naresh Saw R/O Village - Shailopur, P.S. Rafiganj, District Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. R.P. Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 20-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner, who is in custody since 19.06.2019, has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No.121 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, having earlier been rejected by this Court by order dated 03.03.2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 61379 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with assault on the informant and when the brother and grand father of the informant came to his rescue, the petitioner assaulted on the head of informant's grand father with 'tangi' causing serious injury, who died during treatment. The petitioner has already suffered more than one and half years

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32947 of 2020(4) dt.20-02-2021 2/2 in custody and claims clean antecedents.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court sees no reason to take a different view in the matter of granting bail to the petitioner. The bail petition stands dismissed.

5. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T