Raj Lal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33642 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2019 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== RAJ LAL YADAV aged about 62 years, Male, Son of Late Deo Lal Yadav Resident of Village - Chanipur, P.S.- Laukaha, Distt - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, AP.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 24 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 208 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the allegation against the petitioner is concerned it is alleged that the petitioner had given a Farsa blow on the head of the mother-in-law of the informant. It is submitted that both the parties are co-sharers and they were fighting over some land dispute.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33642 of 2019(3) dt.08-08-2019 2/2 Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. It is submits that petitioner had used a deadly weapon Farsa and had assaulted on the head of the mother-in-law of the informant which had caused injury and that gets corroborated from the injury report. In the given facts and circumstances of the case where there is specific allegation of giving Farsa blow against this petitioner which has caused injury on the vital part of the body, may be simple in nature, this court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused. In case, the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered by the court below by applying the parameters of regular bail and shall not be rejected only on the ground that this court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T