Nanhaku Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45320 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2021 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

NANHAKU THAKUR S/o LATE SARAL THAKUR R/o VILLAGEBELHIKHAS, P.S-KATEYA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 2.

TUNTUN THAKUR S/o NANHAKU THAKUR R/o VILLAGEBELHIKHAS, P.S-KATEYA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 3.

PANKAJ THAKUR S/o NANHAKU THAKUR R/o VILLAGEBELHIKHAS, P.S-KATEYA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Harendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 95 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the informant who is poor and helpless person, in his absence, the petitioners entered into his house abused his daughter and badly assaulted her. When the informant came, they also badly assaulted him and he got unconscious. When he regained

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45320 of 2021(2) dt.13-04-2022 2/2 his consciousness he came to police station where from seeing the serious condition her daughter was referred to hospital. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is land dispute but there is nothing on the record which shows that there was land dispute between the parties. He has further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after five days of the occurrence and the petitioners are the persons of clean antecedents. The petitioners in the absence of the informant entered into his house and badly assaulted his daughter, sustaining the injuries she was referred to the hospital.

In the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T