← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39446/2024bail rejected

Mritunjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-02Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39446 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2022 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Mritunjay Kumar S/o Ramjapo Mahto R/o village-Rajakpur,P.s.- Nawkothi,District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anshu Dhar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 02-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Naokothi P.S. Case No. 127 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 384, 385, 354(B), 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 01.09.2022 by the informant, Raghunandan Mahto.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that on the fateful day when he was in his house, the accused persons came armed variously, demanded 'rangdari' and thereafter assaulted. The specific allegation is against this petitioner, Mritunjay Kumar of using the iron rod which hit the head and sustained injury on the temporal region. There is also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39446 of 2024(3) dt.02-08-2024 2/2 the allegation of outraging the modesty of the female family members. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that there is delay in lodging of the FIR, he do not have criminal antecedent and due to simple dispute, the FIR lodged.

5. The supplementary injury report is on record, according to which, there is fracture of mid third of clavicle which has been found to be grievous in nature.

6. In that background and considering the period of custody, for the present this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner, which is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T