Pankaj Kumar Ishwar @ Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36384 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2018 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
PANKAJ KUMAR ISHWAR @ PANKAJ KUMAR Son of Maheshwar Ishwar Resident of Village- Sherpur Narsari, P.S.- Sarairanjan, DistrictSamastipur. 2.
Maheshwar Ishwar Son of Late Faudi Ishwar Resident of Village- Sherpur Narsari, P.S.- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 26-06-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.
Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 159 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 354B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. The injuries sustained have been found to be simple in nature. Petitioners are man of clean antecedent.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36384 of 2019(2) dt.26-06-2019 2/2 prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that there is specific allegation of assault against these petitioners by means of Khanti and Garasa. There is also allegation that these petitioners torn the clothes of the mother and wife of the informant. He, therefore submits that petitioners do not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Tear Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T